m?m 


•  * 


i     PrincetOJi,  N.  :  ^/^  3      \ 


BX    9193     .B3    T7    1836 

Trial  of  the  Rev.  Albert 
Barnes 


'Is 


^ 


TRIAL 

OF   THE 

REV.  ALBERT  BARNES, 

BEFORE   THE    SYNOD    OF    PHILADELPHIA, 
Iia   SesMon  at  Torli,   October  1835. 

ON   A    CHARGE   OF 

HERESY, 


PREFERRSD   AGAINST    HIM   BY    THE    R^^^EO'^^SSL?  ' 

WITH  ALL  THE  PLEADLNGS  AND  DEBATE. 


—    l"''-. 


AS   REPORTED  FOR  THE  NEW  YORK  OBSERVER, 
BIT    ILBTHUR    J-    ST AKSBXTRir . 


NEW   YORK: 
VAN  NOSTRAND  &    DWIGHT,   146  NASSAU-ST' 

1836. 


.IIITGBTOII 


NOTICE. 

The  trial  of  Mr.  Barnes  was  an  important  event 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  Prosecution  was 
aimed  not  at  him,  personally,  but  rather  at  the  the- 
ological views  embraced  and  promulgated  by  him  . 
and  as  on  the  trial  of  Dr.  Beecher,  which  had  re. 
cently  preceded  it,  principles  and  not  men,  were  at 
issue.  As  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Barnes  and  Dr. 
Beecher,  are  approved  and  held  by  a  large  number 
of  Ministers  and  Members  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  the  case  naturally  excited  great  interest  '■ 
and  its  decision  is  likely  to  be  followed  by  exten- 
sive and  important  consequences.  It  was  there- 
fore very  desirable,  not  only  that  all  the  steps  in 
the  proceedings  should  be  carefully  noted  down, 
but  that  the  arguments  in  support  of  them,  and  the 
sentiments  of  the  leading  men  engaged,  whether  in 
effecting,  or  in  opposing  them,  should  be  preserved! 
and  that  a  faithful  and  important  expose  of  the  whole 
scene  should  be  presented  to  the  Church.  It  has 
been  the  aim  of  the  Reporter  to  accomplish  thisim-. 
portant,  but  very  difficult  task.  How  he  has  sue 
ceeded,  must  be  left  for  the  actors  in  the  scene,  and 
for  those  who  witnessed  it,  to  say.  He  is,  at  least, 
conscious  of  an  upright  intent,  and  of  the  most  scru- 
pulous impartiality  toward  all  parties  concerned. 
The  favorable  reception  of  the  Report  as  it  appeared 


J^  MOTICI. 

in  the  Observer,  (to  the  enterprise  of  whose  Propri 
etors  the  religious  public  is  not  now  for  the  first 
time  indebted),  has  induced  the  Publishers  to  throw- 
it  into  its  present  more  convenient  and  permanent 
form.  The  doctrinal  views  presented  in  this  trial 
and  in  that  of  Dr.  Beecher,  render  the  reports  of 
both,  items  of  great  value,  as  supplying  materials  to 
the  future  historian  of  the  American  Church. 

VAN  NOSTRAND  &  DWIGIIT. 
New  York.  May  ],  1836. 


TRIAL 


OF 


ME.  BARNES. 


The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  met  at  York,  Pa.  on 
Wednesday,  Oct.  28th,  1835.  At  the  opening  of  Synod, 
245  members  were  present,  viz.  133  ministers  and  113 
elders.  On  the  vote  for  Moderator,  230  votes  were 
siven,  viz.  for  Wm.  Engles,  155,  for  Reuben  Post,  75. 
Wednesday  and  part  of  Thursday  were  occupied 
chiefly  in  discussing  the  right  to  their  seats  of  certain 
elders,  belonging  to  churches  newly  formed  and  at- 
tached to  the  (Assembly's)  2d  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia. This  business  having  been  disposed  of,  the  ap- 
peal taken  by  the  Rev.  George  Junkin,  D.  D.  from  a 
decision  of  the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  acquitting  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes?,  of 
Philadelphia,  from  a  charge  of  heresy  preferred 
against  him  by  Dr.  J.  came  up  for  discussion. 

Dr.  CuYLER  from  the  Judicial  Committee,  made  a 
report  on  the  Appeal  of  Dr.  Junkin.  declaring  the  ap- 
peal to  be  in  order,  and  recommending  that  the  synod 
do  take  it  up. 

Dr.  Green  moved  that  it  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Winchester  objected  to  this  course.  If  this 
recommendation  was  adopted,  the  synod  would  stand 
pledged  to  go  into  the  trial  and  issue  it :  but  Mr.  W. 
would  prefer  that  the  whole  subject  be  referred 
to  the  next  General  Assembly.  For  this  prefer- 
ence he  would  state  his  reasons  in  brief;  that  the  sy- 
nod might  not  suppose  he  had  proposed  a  step  so  im- 
portant without  having  good  reasons  for  it.  The  book 
of  discipline  declared  that  "  cases  of  a  peculiarly  dif- 
1 


6  TRIAL    OF 

ficult  or  delicate  nature  migrht  be  referred  to  a  high- 
er court."  This  was  certainly  a  case  of  that  deecrip- 
tion :  it  wae  both  ditlicult  and  delicate;  difficult,  be- 
cause Mr.  Barnes's  book,  on  which  the  appeal  was 
founded,  abounded  in  contradictions;  and  that,  to 
such  a  degree,  that  it  was  impossible  from  the  peru- 
eal  of  it,  to  say  what  was  the  real  belief  of  the  author. 

Mr.  Barnes  here  interposed.  Moderator,  am  I  on 
trial  ?  Is  it  in  order  now  to  discuss  the  merits  of  that 
book? 

The  MouERATOR  called  Mr.  Winchester  to  order. 

Mr.  Winchester.  I  certainly  had  not  the  slightest 
intention  to  arraign  any  one,  or  to  enter  prematurely 
on  the  merits  of  the  appeal.  I  was  merely  stating  my 
reasons  for  wishing  the  subject  rclerred  to  the  Ae- 
eembly.  I  meant  no  oti'ence,  and  shall  not  repeat  the 
remark.  But  the  suliiect  is  not  only  a  difficult  one: 
it  is  a  delicate  one.  There  is  a  question  of  popular 
prejudice  in  the  way.  No  one  that  is  acquainted  with 
the  past  can  hesitate  to  believe  that  popular  preju- 
dice will  set  strongly  against  any  decision  which  this 
synod  may  make  in  the  case.  We  shall  be  looked 
upon  as  having  prejudiced  it :  because  the  same  au- 
thor has  been  before  us  on  a  former  occasion.  1  think 
we  must  all  feel  the  pressure  of  this  difficulty.  Not 
that  we  are  unable  to  act  conscientiously.  1  mean  to  in- 
sinuate no  such  idea  ;  for  1  know  and  feel  the  contrary 
to  be  true  :  but  I  fear  that  act  how  we  may  we  can- 
not act  satisfactorily.  1  move  you,  sir,  that  this  ap- 
peal be  referred  to  the  next  meeting  of  the  General 
Assembly. 

Dr.  Green.  I  am  opposed  to  the  motion  for  refer- 
ence, and  I  will  state  a  few  of  the  reasons  which  in- 
duce me  to  oppose  it.  I  am  opposed,  in  all  instances, 
to  having  an  inferior  court  rel'cr  its  own  duties  to  a 
higher,  unless  in  cases  far  niore  special  than  I  appre- 
hend this  to  be.  The  Assembly,  as  we  all  know,  will 
have  much  to  dn  :  and  when  cases  have  been  thus 
referred  to  that  body  they  have  in  every  instance 
sent  the  matter  down  again  to  be  issued  by  the  judi- 
catory below :  and  if  I  should  be  a  member  of  the 
next  Assembly  I  think  I  should  make  a  motion  of  that 
kind,  should  the  case  be  sent  there.  That  ihe  case  is 
both  difficult  and  delicate,  is  true:  but  it  is  eqaally 
true  that  it  will  be  just  as  difficult  and  just  as  delicate 
■when  it  comes  before  the  Assembly.  And  as  to  the 
difficulty  from  popular  prejudice,  there  is  just  as  much 
oi  that  felt  toward  the  Assembly  as  toward  this  sy- 
nod. No  sir  :  let  us  do  our  duty.  The  case  is  brought 
before  us,  and  let  us  meet  it  in  a  Christian  manner. 
1  have  little  doubt  that  there  will  be  an  appeal :  but 
to  shiit  ort'all  our  business  on  the  higher  judicatory  is 
anti-presbyterial.  I  am  opposed  to  the  motion.  Sure 
I  am  tliat  I  have  as  little  wish  or  disposition  to  enter 


MR.    BARNES.  7 

into  this  trial  as  any  one.  1  have,  I  assure  you,  no  in- 
clination to  handle  the  subject:  and  I  should,  on  the 
contrary,  shrink  I'rom  touching  it  i(  I  could  do  so  with 
j)ropriety.  I  am, I  say,  opposed  to  this  reference  :  still, 
1  have  made  it  a  princii)le  throuj^hout  my  long  life, 
always  to  go  with  my  brethren  whenever  there  was 
no  conscientious  scruples  in  the  way.  I  hope  we  shall 
take  up  this  matter  at  an  early  day.  The  House,  I 
Tear,  will  soon  begin  to  be  thinned. 

Mr.  McKiNNEY,  I  consider  this  case  as  dilHcult,  to 
be  sure,  but  not  more  so  than  other  cases  which  come 
before  us.  Our  churches  expect  us  to  take  it  up,  and 
to  examine  it.  Itisoneofthe  duties  of  this  synod  to 
doit:  and  are  we  going  to  shrink  Irom  our  duty? 
Why  ?  What  excuse  can  we  render  for  not  perform- 
ing it?  Is  this  a  small  body?  No,  Moderator,  it  is 
a  large  one.  Is  the  synod  unusually  thin  in  numbers  ? 
No  sir:  there  is  an  unusuall  fully  and  general  attend- 
ance. A'Ve  can  as  well  determine  it  as  another  body 
can.  Let  us  shew  to  the  churches  what  are  the  real 
sentiments  of  this  body  on  the  great  leading  doctrines 
of  Christianity.  The  Presbyterian  church  looks  for 
this  at  our  hands.  Our  own  churches  want  to  know 
what  we  think  on  these  leading,  on  these  disputed 
points.  It  has  been  confidently  said,  before  w^e  came 
here,  that  synod  would  shrink  from  the  question.  I 
hope  we  shall  not  shrink.  I  hope  we  shall  take  up  the 
appeal:  and  take  it  up  soon,  while  the  House  re- 
mains full.  We  have  here  a  large  body  of  our  elders, 
who  have,  at  great  personal  sacrifice^  left  their  em- 
ployments, and  who  wish  to  be  instructed,  and  to  car- 
ry home  what  they  hear,  and  be  able  to  tell  to  the 
sessions  what  they  heard  with  their  own  ears  about 
these  matters.  They  cannot  stay  here  long.  I  think, 
therefore  we  should  take  it  up  without  delay. 

Dr.  Cathcart  said  he  should  rejoice  to  have  the 
case  referred,  under  certain  circumstances.  It  had 
been  said  there  were  certain  prejudices  against  the 
synod  as  being  prepossessed,  a.vj  as  having  preju- 
diced the  case.  Now  if  the  members  of  svnod  would 
all  pledge  themselves  to  each  other  that  when  the 
casecaine  before  the  General  Assembly,  they  would 
abstain  from  voting  upon  it,  and  let  the  Assembly  de- 
cide it  impartially,  then  he  should  rejoice  'o  see  the 
whole  subject  at  once  referred. 

[The  Moderator  reminded  Dr.  Cathcart  that  this 
would  not  be  in  order. 

Weil,  said  the  Dr.  we  all  have  our'prejudices  :  but 
as  it  will  have  to  go  to  the  Assembly  at  last,  my  wish 
is  that  it  should  go  now ;  but  with  this  restriction. 
Butifweareio  refer  it  to  the  Assembly  and  then 
vote  upon  it  there,  I  do  not  think  it  will  be  a  lair  pro- 
ceeding. Surely  we  can  pledge  ourselves,  without 
any  violation  of  order,  not  to  vote :  we  are  not  forced 


8  TRIAL   OF 

to  vote.  This  will  be  all  fair  and  honorable  and  jus(. 
The  cause  ought  to  go  there  :  and  if  we  will  only  let 
the  Assembly  decide  it  for  us  and  in  an  unbiased 
manner,  I  shall  rejoice  exceedinjriy.  I  hope,  however, 
it  will  not  be  sent  up,  unless  with  this  restriction. 

Mr.  Hill.  If  what  has  now  been  called  a  pre- 
judice is  sufficient  to  prevent  the  Synod  from  passing 
a  just  judgment  in  the  case,  I  am  apt  to  beheve  there 
will  be  the  same  objection  to  any  decision  of  it  by  the 
Assembly.  I  believe,  Moderator,  that  we  are  quite 
as  unprejudiced  as  the  Assembly  are  like  to  be.  But 
if  opposition  to  such  doctrine  as  Mr.  Barnes  is  charged 
■with  is  a  prejudice,  I  hope  such  prejudice  will  be  (bund 
in  all  our  courts,  and  continue  to  be  found  and  to  pre- 
vail there,  till  all  opposition  to  the  truth  issuccesslul- 
ly  put  down. 

Mr.  MusGRAVE.  I  have  but  a  few  words  to  say.  I 
am  strongly  in  favor  of  referrino^  this  whole  case  to 
the  General  Assembly,  but  with  the  understanding 
that  the  other  party  shall  not  enter  a  complaint  against 
this  act,  so  as  to  leave  it  in  the  power  of  the  Assembly 
to  take  up  the  matter  either  on  the  reference  or  on 
the  complaint,  according  as  that  body  maybe  found 
to  have  one  complexion  or  the  other.  If  you  refer  the 
case  to  the  Assembly,  and  the  other  parly  shall  enter 
a  complaint,  and  that  party  shall  chance  to  have  a 
majority  there,  they  may  serve  us  as  they  did  the  Sy- 
nocl  that  met  in  Baltimore,  and  we  may  be  thrown 
out.  If  those  amon;^  us  who  are  understood  as  advo- 
cating Mr.  Barnes'  book  will  consent  to  the  reference, 
then  I  am  strongly  in  favor  of  that  course:  but  if  they 
are  determined  to  complain,  then  a  question  of  policy 
arises,  viz:  whether  we  shall,  by  reierring  the  case, 
do  ourselves  and  the  cause  of  truth,  as  we  under- 
stand it,  sheer  justice.  There  can  be  no  use  of  along 
discussion  here  when  we  all  know  that  our  decision  is 
not  to  be  final  in  the  cause,  k  will  go  up  :  and  il  there 
is  a  complaint,  the  whole  Synod  will  be  thrown  out 
and  not  allowed  to  vote.  In  which  case  nothing  will 
be  effectually  settled.  This  is  not  a  private  question. 
It  is  not  the  case  merely  of  a  man,  or  of  a  congrega- 
tion— no  sir,  but  the  interests  of  truth,  and  the  pros- 
perity, the  purity,  the  peace,  and  I  had  almost  said 
the  uuiVy  of  the  Presbyterian  church  are  deeply  in- 
volved in  its  decision.  I  cannot  consent  to  the  insinu- 
ation that  we  are  so  prejudiced  that  we  cannot  right- 
eously decide  it.  I  disclaim  any  such  feeling.  I  am 
prejudiced,  stronsfly  prejudiced,  but  I  trust  it  is  in  fa- 
vor of  God  and  ol  his  truth,  and  of  tlie  order  of  his 
house.  In  this  prejudice  I  glory.  But  as  to  any  feel- 
ing of  personal  bitterness  toward  the  author  of  the 
book  on  the  Romans,  I  utterly  disclaim  and  deny  it. 
All  others,  perhaps  can  say  the  same.  I  trust,  at 
least,  that  we  are  not  to  be  mfluenced  by  an  insinua- 


MR.    BARNES.  9 

tion  to  the  contrary.  I  came  here  with  the  determi- 
nation to  call  black,  black;  and  to  call  white,  while: 
and  by  the  grace  olGoil  I  will  do  it.  I  have  no  pre- 
judice for  or  against  Mr.  Barnes.  But  if  his  friends 
here  will  acquiesce  in  permitting  the  reference, 
it  will  save  much  time  and  much  feeling,  and  will, 
I  am  persuaded,  aid  the  cause  of  Christ  in  thin 
borough.  I  am  persuaded  the  Assembly  can  go 
into  this  thing  dispassionately  ;  and  1  hope  in  God  the 
decision  there  will  be  final.  "We  are  all,  1  am  sure, 
sick  at  heart  of  this  state  of  contention  and  endless 
disputation:  Yes,  sir,  I,  for  one,  am  heartily  disgust- 
ed with  it.  I  wish  for  peace.  And  I  now  ask  the 
brethren  on  the  other  side, whether  they  will  acquiesce 
in  the  reference,  if  it  is  made  ?  if  they  will  allow  the 
case  to  go  up  to  the  Assembly  with  the  distinct  and 
acknowledged  understanding  that  they  will  make  no 
difficulty  so  as  to  exclude  the  Synod  from  a  vote  on 
the  floor  of  that  body?  If  they  will  give  us  this 
pledge  I  am  ready  to  meet  them:  but,  if  they  will  not 
do  this,  it  is  a  matter  of  doubt  with  me  whether  we 
ought  not  thoroughly  to  discuss  and  decide  the  case 
here,  and  now.  The  weight  ol  this  body  should  be 
made  to  be  felt,  in  some  way  If  we  are  to  be  exclu- 
ded in  the  Assembly,  let  us  act  before  we  go  there; 
so  that  our  action,  at  some  time,  may  tell  on  the  cause 
of  Christ  and  the  interests  of  truth.  My  course  will 
be  shaped  by  that  of  the  brethren  on  the  other  side. 
1  wait  for  their  decision. 

Mr.  Winchester.  It  was  not  said  by  me  that  the 
Synod  were  prejudiced,  but  that  they  were  charged 
Avith  being  sol  1  expressly  guarded  against  the  sup- 
position that  I  thought  so  :  what  I  fear  is  the  impres- 
sion abroad  that  we  are  too  prejudiced  to  decide  im- 
partially. 

Mr.  Steele.  I  am  opposed  to  the  reference,  and  in 
favor  of  adopting  the  report  of  the  Judicial  Commit- 
tee. I  was  pained  to  hear  the  remark  of  the  brother, 
(Mr.  Musgrave)  that  a  discussion  of  it  by  Synod  would 
be  injurious  to  the  cause  of  Christ  among  the  inhabit- 
ants of  this  borough.  I  was  amazed  to  hear  such 
language  from  that  brother. 

Mr.  Musgrave  explained.  The  injury  he  depreca- 
ted was  not  from  the  discussion  itself,  but  from  the 
great  excitement  which  it  would  be  likely  to  create 
out  of  doors. 

The  Moderator  said  he  hoped  the  brethren  would 
refrain  from  all  remarks  of  that  character.  This  oon- 
stant  reference  to  some  great  apprehended  excite- 
ment, was,  itself,  the  most  effectual  cause  of  excite- 
ment. It  tended  directly  to  produce  what  it  depre- 
cated. 

Mr.  Steele  resumed.  I  had  the  high  privilege  to 
witness  the  proceedings  in  this  case  in  the  court  be- 
"   1* 


10  TRIAL   OF 

•low  :  and  all  who  like  me  were  preeent  on  that  occa- 
sion can  testily,  as  1  most  expressly  do,  that  nothing 
transpired  there  which  had  any  tendency  whatever 
to  injure  the  cause  of  Jesus  Christ,  if  it  had  happened 
before  any  audience  whatever. 

So  far  was  this  from  being  the  case,  that  I  heard 
Bome  of  the  auditors  on  that  occasion  say,  they 
could  with  i)leasure  have  sat  for  weeks  listenmgto  so 
delightful  and  interesting  a  discussion  of  the  great 
doctrines  oithe  gospel.  And  why  may  not  the  same 
state  o(  things  prevail  here?  I  hope,  for  one,  that 
Instead  of  injuring,  the  discussion  will  greatly  i)ro- 
niote  the  cause  ol  piety  and  truth.  There  is  another 
reason  why  the  Synod  ouglit  not  to  refer  this  case, 
but  to  discuss  and  decide  it.  We  have  been  told  that 
to  send  uj)  to  a  higher  court  that  which  rightfully  per- 
tains to  this  judicatory  will  be  anti-Presbyterial.  And 
why  should  we  do  it?  I  know  that  many  of  our 
churches  expect  the  Synod  to  do  its  duty  on  the  pre- 
mises. I  speak  advisedly  when  I  say  this.  Our  church- 
es look  for  it,  and  they  will  not  be  satisfied  if  we  take 
any  other  course.  Moderator,  we  have  no  right  thus 
to  shrink  from  our  duty  :  unless,  indeed,  we  can  by 
common  agreement  go  into  General  Assembly  un- 
trammelled. But  as  to  agreeing  not  to  vote  there, 
as  has  been  suggested,  it  is  out  of  the  question.  On 
the  whole  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  interests  of  reli- 
gion, that  the  peace  and  the  purity  of  Clirist's  church 
call  lor  an  immediate  decision  of  this  case.  I  hope  we 
shall  go  into  it  without  delay,  and  I  can  pledge  myself 
for  the  parties  more  immediately  interested,  that  no- 
thinij  injurious  to  the  cause  of  piety  will  take  place 
on  their  part. 

Dr.  MDowELL.  There  was  a  remark  which  drop- 
ped from  brother  Musgrave  which  I  did  not  fully  com- 
prehend. He  talked  several  times  about  "  brethren 
on  the  uthei-  side:"  what  does  he  mean  by  the  "  other 
side ?" 

Mr.  Musgrave.  Those  who  moved  for,  and  who 
advocate  the  adoption  of  the  rei)ort  of  the  Judicial 
Committee,  and  who  wi.<h  the  trial  immediately  to 
proceed,  1  consider  as  on  one  side,  and  those  who 
wish  the  case  referred  at  once  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly, I  understand  as  on  "the  other  side."  Brethren 
who  are  usually  said,  in  common  parlance,  to  be  on 
"  the  old  side"  in  resi)ect  to  certain  religious  tenets 
are  in  favor  ol  one  of  ihc.<e  measures,  and  those  who 
in  the  like  sense  are  styled  "  newieide"  men,  are  for 
the  other.  If  we  can  get  a  pledge  from  these  latter, 
I  am  willing  the  case  should  be  referred  :  otherwise  I 
am  not  willing.  Does  the  brother  understand  me 
now  ?  As  for  myself,  and  some  others  in  this  assem- 
bly, I  consider  ourselves  as  being  about  in  the  middle, 
between  both  parties.  Or,  to  be  more  specific:  Let 


MR.   BAaNES.  11 

Mr.  Barnes  come  forward  here  and  declare  that  if 
the  case  is  referred  he  will  not  enter  a  conii)Iaint 
against  that  course  before  the  Assembly  ;  that,  witli 
me,  and  I  presume  vvitli  all,  will  be  sufficient. 

Dr.  M'DowELL.  That  is  what  I  was  afraid  of,  viz. 
that  Mr.  Musgrave  considered  Mr.  Barnes  as  "  on 
the  other  side"  from  himself:  that  a  judg-e  con^;ide^ed 
tlie  party  accused  as  on  "  the  other  side."  It  was 
just  what  I  feared. 

Mr.  Houston.    Supposing  we  do  refer  the  case  to 
the  Assembly,  may  not  the  Assembly  refuse  to  take  it 
up? 
I  Moderator.    Yes,  certainly. 

Dr.  McDowell.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  reference, 
and  against  the  discussing  of  the  macter  now.  As  to 
the  Synod  being  excluded  from  General  Assembly 
ehoulu  there  be  a  complaint,  the  Synod  will  be  ex- 
cluded simply  on  the  subject  of  the  complaint,  viz. 
whether  they  had  a  right  to  refer  the  cause  at  once 
without  trying  it :  but  we  shall  not  be  excluded  from 
voting  on  the  merits  of  the  cause  itself. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge  interposed.  Did  not  the  As- 
sembly, in  1333,  act  in  a  way  directly  the  reverse  of 
this? 

Dr.  McDowell.  They  did  not.  The  exclusion  of 
the  Synod  was  then  only  as  to  the  point  of  order,  but 
not  as  to  the  merits  of  the  case.  I  suppose  this  case 
will  go  up  to  the  Assembly  at  all  events:  for  I  under- 
stand it  to  be  the  avowed  reason  of  bringing  it  up 
from  the  Presbytery,  that  the  appellant  wishes  to 
have  a  decision  by  the  whole  church.  But  if  the  As- 
Berably  are  to  vote  on  it,  and  this  whole  Synod  to  be 
excluded,  this  will  not  be  obtained.  Such  a  decision, 
when  ten  or  eleven  entire  Presbyteries  are  silent,  will 
not,  by  any  means, be  a  decision  by  the  whole  cfiurch. 
The  very  object  of  the  appeal  will  be  defeated.  As 
this  was  the  grand  object  in  view,  I  am  for  the  refe- 
rence as  the  most  obvious  and  direct  way  to  attain  it. 
A  discussion  here  can  end  in  nothing  but  a  waste  of 
time.  The  whole  matter  will  go  to  the  Assembly  at 
last :  I  am  for  its  goin^  there  at  once.  I  fiave  no  idea 
of  any  Presbytery's  pledging  itself  not  to  vote:  I  want 
all  the  Presbyteries  in  the  body  to  vote;  that  we  may 
have  the  voice  of  the  whole  church. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  My  own  idea  is  that  we 
ought  to  decide  what  we  will  do  before  we  adjourn 
this  day,  and  to-morrow  proceed  to  do  it.  I  will  not 
anler  at  large  upon  the  subject,  but  will  merely  state, 
as  briefly  as  I  can,  a  few  heads  of  argument.  In  the 
first  place,  for  us  to  decide  ihis  cause,  will  be  in  con- 
formity with  the  regular  action  of  our  system.  That 
eystein  requires  that  when  a  party  appeals  from  a  de- 
cision of  a  court  below,  the  cause  shall  be  tried  by  the 
court  next  above  ;  and  this  order  is  not  to  be  depart- 


12  TRIAL   OF 

ed  from  without  a  special  and  sufficient  reason.  And 
80  sensible  lias  the  Assembly  been  olthe  propriety  oJ 
Buch  a  course,  that  ii  has  more  than  once  refused  to 
decide  questions  wiiicii  have  been  referred  to  it  over 
the  head  of  tlie  Synod.  This  has  been  done  with  the 
concurrence  of  many  now  here  present.  Asjain: 
There  is  nolhing^  in  tJiis  case  to  take  it  out  of  the  or- 
dinary course  of  ecclesiastical  business.  It  is  a  mere 
case  of  personal  dillerence  in  sentiment,  between  one 
gentleman  and  another.  It  is  just  such  a  question  as 
may  and  does  occur  every  day  :  there  is  nothing  about 
it  to  excite  or  justify  more  excitement  than  is  caused 
by  any  otiier  matter  of  every  day's  occurrence  be- 
tween two  parties  equally  respectable.  It  is  a  per- 
sonal case  ;  a  case  ol  mere  personal  interest ;  save  so 
far  as  the  truth  is  concerned  :  and  that  is  concerned, 
of  course,  in  every  charge  ol  hereby.  There  is  no 
complexity  in  the  case.  It  is  plain  and  simple,  and 
may  readily  be  settled.  Neither  is  it  a  case  of  any  pe- 
culiar delicacy  ;  it  is  no  more  a  delicate  thin^,  so  far 
as  I  can  see,  to  acquit  or  to  condemn  Mr.  Barnes, 
than  to  condemn  or  acquit  any  other  man,  the  most 
obscure  in  the  church.  It  is  related  of  Bonaparte, 
that  when  a  cause  was  to  be  tried  in  which  an  indi- 
vidual was  concerned  in  whom  he  felt  the  strongest 
pergonal  interest,  he  said  to  the  judges,  "Go  on  and 
try  the  cause  just  as  if  it  was  the  cause  of  a  milliner 
in  the  Rue  Antoine."  So  in  this  case:  we  are  to 
treat  it  precisely  as  if  it  lay  between  two  persons  we 
had  never  heard  of  in  our  lives  before.  There  is 
nothing  delicate  or  unusual  in  the  matter  at  all.  As 
to  the  Synod's  being  excluded  from  voting  m  the  As- 
eembly,  it  amounts  to  nothing.  What?  because  we 
may  lose  15  or  20  or  30  votes,  are  we  not  to  do  our 
duty  7  What  sort  of  an  argument  is  that?  It  is  said 
the  Synod  will  lose  votes:  well;  suppose  they  do:  if 
it  is  tlie  fair  and  regular  action  of  our  system,  let  us 
stand  to  our  system.  When  I  adopted  it  as  my  sys- 
tem, 1  never  meant  to  stand  to  it  only  when  it  hap- 
pened to  work  on  my  side.  So  long  as  I  am  a  Pres- 
byterian, 1  will  be  a  Presbyterian.  Could  it  even  be 
demonstrated  to  me  that  unless  we  reler  the  case, the 
Assembly  will  certainly  acquit  the  accused,  it  would 
not,  in  my  mind,  be  the  one  ten  thousandth  part  of  a 
reason  why  v/e  should  not  i)roceed  and  try  the  cause. 
If  Mr.  Barnes  can  obtain  such  an  advantage  by  the 
regular  working  of  the  system,  he  is  entitled  to  it: 
and  let  him  have  it.  Let  us  act  the  system  fairly  out, 
before  God  and  the  universe.  Such  an  argument 
has  nothing  in  the  round  world  to  do  with  the  case. 
It  is  nothing  to  us  what  Mr.  Barnes  will  gain,  or 
what  he  will  loae  :  the  only  question  is, — is  he  inno- 
cent or  i?  he  guilty  ?  You  cannot  escape  out  of  this 
case.    Honesty  ever  puts  a  man  in  the  best  condition. 


MR.   BARNES.  13 

Some  brethren  are  wiiling  to  refer,  if  Mr.  Barnes  will 
here  declare  that  he  will  take  no  advantage  of  the 
reference  :  but  Mr.  Barnes  has  no  right  to  speak  to 
that  question.  And  if  he  ditl,  the  pledge  would  be 
nothing  :  for  though  he  should  not  complain,  his  friend 
may,  or  his  enemy  may.  The  Book  says  :  ''  Or  any 
other  person."  The  language  is  perfectly  unqualified. 
Any  member  of  the  Presbyterian  church  may  com- 
plain; nay,  any  man  in  the  world  may  complain  to  the 
Assembly  of  the  decision  of  a  church  court  below,  and 
the  provision  is  wise,  itis  one  ef  the  beautiful  features 
ol'our  admirable  form  of  government.  Any  body — 
yea — any  body  who  believes  that  the  even  course  of 
justice  has  from  any  cause  been  drawn  aside,  has  the 
right  of  calling  upon  the  Superior  court  to  inter- 
fere and  review  the  act  and  redress  the  injustice.  I 
knew  a  case  precisely  of  this  kind.  An  individual^ 
who  was  not  even  a  member  of  our  church,  or  of 
any  church,  was  present  at  the  doings  of  one  of 
our  Presbyteries,  and  bein^  convinced  that  an  indi- 
vidual there  tried  had  not  nad  justice  done  him,  al- 
though himself  unconnected  with  the  case,  complain- 
ed to  the  court  above  ;  and  the  decision  was  taken  up 
and  examined,  and  the  judgment,reversed.  Gentle- 
men talk  about  pledges  :  who  can  give  a  pledge  for 
every  other  member  of  this  Synod  ?  who  has  a  right 
to  become  sponsor  for  the  body  ?  Any  one  member 
may  complam,  at  pleasure.  The  complaint  goes  up 
to  the  Assembly,  and  then — where  are  you  ?  I  will 
tell  )  ou  where  you  will  be.  I  affirm,  in  opposition  to 
the  statement  of  the  brother  opposite,  (Dr.  McDow- 
ell,) that  three  different  assemblies  have  settled  the 
principle  that  when  a  case  has  been  issued  below, 
and  a  complaint  is  preferred  to  the  Assembly,  the 
whole  case  is  before  them,  and  they  have  a  right  to 
take  it  up  as  a  whole,  and  settle  it.  In  a  case  where 
the  Assembly  decided  to  sustain  a  complaint  against 
an  act  of  Synod,  I  did  myself  move  in  the  Assembly 
that  the  members  of  Synod  be  admitted  to  vote  ;  and 
it  was  refused.  The  very  men  who  had  before  con- 
tended for  a  construction  of  the  constitution  broad 
enough  to  admit  a  coach-and-six,  instantly  turned 
about  and  closed  the  opening  to  a  crevice  so  small 
that  it  could  not  be  seen.  And  this  is  the  case  you 
are  asked  to  put  yourselves  into.  If  is  said  that  if  a 
pledge  is  given,  it  will  be  relied  on ;  but  the  very  ask- 
ing of  a  pledge  shows  that  a  frick  of  some  kind  is  to 
be  looked  for,  and  avoided.  But  it  can't  be  avoided. 
I  would  not  Avillingly  "  speak  evil  of  the  Ruler  of  my 
people  ;"  but  this  1  will  say,  that  if  you  have  at  the 
Assembly  a  house  constituted  as  it  was  in  f  833,  they 
will  exclude  any  body— •j^ye,,  sir — and  decide  any 
ihing.  They  may  complicate  the  thing  in  every  way. 
They  may  decide  a  part  of  it,  and  send  down  a  part  of 


14  TRIAL   OF 

it  to  you.  And  thus,  by  referriiifj  the  case,  you  may 
in  edcct  put  off  a  decision  of  it  lor  years,  to  the  inju- 
ry not  only  of  Ihe  cause  of  orthodoxy,  but  also  of  the 
individual  concerned.  If  the  Synod  settle  it,  we  shall 
be  done  with  it.  We  cannot  act  again  upon  it  in  the 
Assembly.  iVIoderator,  if  we  ehall  now  try  Mr,  Barnes 
and  acquit  him  ;  if  we  shall  say  that  his  book  contains 
no  heresy;  if  the  Synod  of  Pliiladel|)hia — stereotyped 
as  it  is,  ihrouLrhout  the  Presbyterian  church  and 
throu;j:hout  the  country,  as  ultra — extra-super-ortho- 
do.x, — insomuch  that  the  jaste  milieuhrGihTcn,  those 
gen;lemen  who  stand  in  the  midrlle,  shrink  from  our 
embrace, — if  such  a  Synod  shall  acquit  Mr.  Barnes, 
where  can  he  Ko  and  not  be  acquitted?  what  other 
tribtina!  i:^  likely  to  condenui  him?  If  this  Synod  ac- 
quits him,  will  not  his  peace  I  e  made  ?  his  cause  gain- 
ed ?  Can  Mr.  Barnes  himself  conceive  of  any  vindica- 
tion more  comjtietc?  more  triumphant?  But  if  we 
shall  decide  against  him,  and  he  takes  up  the  cause 
by  a])pcal,  welire  done  with  it.  We  can  then  say  to 
the  churches,  we  have  done  our  duty,  and  now  the 
case  has  gone  to  the  legiiiuuite  and  final  tribunal.  Be 
assured  of  it,  sir,  the  most  direct  way  to  get  peace  is 
to  meet  this  question  and  decide  it.  We  iiiay  deceive 
ourselves  and  deceive  the  public  by  arguments  drawn 
from  an  imagined  decision  by  the  whole  church.  Mo- 
derator, I  never  will  stooj)  to  flattery,  or  to  pamper 
the  vanity  of  any  man  or  body  of  men  :  but  this  1  will 
say :  ihat  1  never  yet  was  in  that  Assembly  in  the 
United  States  that  I  would  not  rather  have  pronounce 
me  a  heretic  than  this  Synod.  Sir,  it  is  hopeless  to 
appeal  from  your  decision.  It  is  vain  and  idle.  A  de- 
claration by  this  Synod  that  a  man  is  a  heretic  will 
brand  his  name  as  a  heretic  to  the  latest  posterity. 
It  is  vain  to  struggle  against  it.  The  churches  will 
receive  your  award.  The  nation  will  receive  it.  The 
world  will  receive  it.  The  decision  of  the  Assembly 
can  never  counteract  it.  But  the  Assembly  will  ne- 
ver decide  against  your  voice.  Indeed  it  is  a  difTicult 
matter  to  get  that  body  to  decide  any  thing.  I  pre- 
sume of  course  that  the  decision  by  this  Synod  will  be 
a  I'i^ht  decision :  and  that  it  will  be  final  and  irrevo- 
cable.^ Yes,  sir:  there  will  be  no  getting  away  from 
it.  If  you  decide  that  Mr.  Barnes  is  guilty,  il"  you  de- 
clare him  a  heretic — a  heretic  he  will  be,  to  the  latest 
posterity.  And  if,  on  the  other  hand,  you  shall  ac- 
quit him,  then,  in  like  manner,  his  doctrines  will  be 
adjudged  as  orthodox  to  the  latest  posterity. 

Mr.  McCalla.  My  spech  is  this.  Let  us  meet  the 
question  :  meet  it  honorably  :  and  manfully  decide  it. 

Mi^.  Winchester.  My  attention  has  been  called  to 
one  fact  which  will  alter  my  whole  course  on  the  sub- 
ject of  reference.  The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  refused 
to  make  a  division  of  its  presbyteries  into  two  synods  : 


MR.    BAHNES.  l5 

and  a  complaint  was  preferred  to  the  Assembly 
against  that  decision.  On  the  vote  to  sustam  this 
complaint  the  synod  was  excluded :  and  if  so,  then  I 
am  unwilling  to  jeopardize  this  synod,  and  place  it 
again  in  the  like  circumstances  by  referring  this  trial 
to  the  Assembly.  I  did  not  wish  it  referred,  because 
I  was  myself  unprepared  ro  pass  a  judgment  in  the 
case.  I  am  prepared,  and  have  long  been  prepared, 
to  take  it  up  and  decide  it.  1  came  here  to  get  lij^jht ; 
and  I  could  now  give  a  decision  conscientiously :  but  I 
am  not  prepared  to  give  my  final  and  official  judg- 
ment until  1  first  hear  the  discussion.  Like  my  bro- 
ther near  me  (Mr.  R.  Breckinridge)  I  am  in  favor  of 
the  right  action  of  our  system — wholly  in  favor  of  it. 
The  chiefreason  why  I  was  desirous  of  a  reference, 
was  the  difficulty  I  apprehended  in  arriving  at  a  right 
decision  m  the  matter  ;  a  difficulty,  however,  existing 
not  in  my  own  mind,  but  in  Mr.  Barnes's  book,  be- 
cause it  is  so  full  of  direct  contradictions  that  it  is  im- 
possible  

[Here  Mr.  Barnes  called  Mr.  W.  to  order.] 
The  Moderator  again  said  that  Mr.  Winchester 
was  not  in  order  in  this  remark.    Nor  was  he  in  order 
in  declaring  that  he  was  now  ready  to  decide  the 
cause. 

Mr.  Winchester  would  state  again  what  it  was 
that  he  had  said  ;  he  had  said  that  if  compelled  to  de- 
cide the  cause  now,  he  was  ready :  but  that  he  should 
prefer  to  hear  the  discussion  before  he  gave  his  judg- 
ment :  and  if  there  was  to  be  a  discussion,  then  he 
was  not  prepared  until  he  had  heard  it.  But  said  Mr. 
W.  I  ask  you  yourself,  Mr.  Moderator,  and  1  ask  all 
those  who  hear  me,  whether,  if  compelled  to  give  a 
decision,  you  are  not  now  ready  ?  Wliy  sir,  what  is 
the  necessary  preparation  to  judge  in  this  matter  ?  If 
a  man  has  examined  the  hook  on  which  Dr.  Junkin's 
charges  are  founded,  and  has  there  found  a  confirma- 
tion of  those  charges,  is  he  not  prepared  to  decide  the 
question  whether  the  charges  have  or  have  not  been 
proved  '?  He  may  not  yet  be  ready  to  deliver  his 
opinion  :  but  surely  he  has  the  materials  on  v/hich  to 
form  one.  And  as  to  its  being  out  of  order  to  s]  eak 
of  Mr.  Barnes's  book,  am  I  not  at  liberty  to  speak, 
here,  of  any  book  in  the  world  ? 

Moderator.  No  :  remarks  on  Mr.  Barnes's  book 
necessarily  involve  the  merits  of  the  question  which 
judicially  come  before  us  ;  and  your  remarks  may  be 
such  as  tend  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  the  court 
against  the  book. 

Dr.  Ely.  Moderator,  to  what  motion  ia  Mr.  Win- 
chester now  speaking? 

Mr.  Winchester.  There  is'a  difficulty  in  the  minds 
of  some  members  arising  out  of  something  in  the  book 
which  I  must  not  speak  of.    The  book,  however,  is 


16  TRIAL  OF 

not  on  trial  before  us,  but  the  author  of  the  book  :  yet 
I  will  not  say  what  I  did  jjropose  to  say  of  the  evi- 
dence the  book  contains  resi)ectin?  him  and  his  opin- 
ions, I  may,  1  suppose,  state  a  fact  wliicli  every  critic 
and  every  reviewer  is  allowed  t®  state.  I  have  not 
asserted  in  respect  to  his  doctrines,  either  that  they 
are  heretical  or   that  they   are  orthodox.    In  conse- 

auenceofthe  contradictions  in  his  book,   it  may  be 
ifficult  to  form  a  decided  opinion  as  to  that. 
[Many  voices  here  called   to  order:  and  there  was 
a  general  sensation  in  the  synod.] 

Moderator.  Mr.  Winchester  is  out  of  order.  The 
Moderator  again  decides  that  it  is  not  in  order  to  dis- 
cuss, now,  the  evidence  which  is  to  come  before  us 
when  we  enter  on  the  trial  of  Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  Winchester.  I  bow  to  the  decision  of  the 
Moderator:  out  of  respect  to  his  office.  I  was  not  in- 
fluenced, in  suggesting  a  reference  to  the  Assembly, 
by  any  reference  to  the  number  of  votes  to  be  gained 
or  lost  in  that  body.  I  believe  the  ditierence  in  the 
vote  there,  and  here,  would  be  very  small.  For  be  it 
remembered  that  the  presbyteries  who  would  proba- 
bly vote  against  us  in  that  body,  have  been  increasing 
and  forming  churches,  and  have  thereby  increased 
their  representation. ,  As  they  have  been  laying  their 
eggs  in  other  people's  nests,  I  cannot  tell,  or  conjec- 
ture, how  many  young  ones  may  have  been  hatched 
out.  My  impression  is  that  the  votes  in  Assembly 
will  be  equally  balanced,  or  nearly  so.  I  never  count- 
ed or  calculated  them.  But  if  the  votes  of  this  synod 
are  to  be  excluded,  let  it  not  be  by  a  complaint,  but 
by  the  regular  operation  of  the  system.  But  if  that 
is  to  be  done,  I  am  certainly  against  the  reference. 
In  this  I  accord  with  my  brother  Breckinridge. 

Mr.  Breckinridge,  interposing, — I  have  a  distinct 
recollection  of  the  case  I  mentioned.  The  synod  re- 
ferred to  the  Assembly.  Some  members  complained 
of  the  reference  :  the  Assembly  took  up  the  complaint, 
and  excluded  the  synod. 

Mr.  Winchester.  If  so,  that  will  decide  me  against 
the  reference.  I  was  wholly  ignorant  of  that  fact.  I 
Avill  not  jeopardize  the  vote  of  a  single  member  on 
this  floor.  For  myself,  I  am  anxious  synod  should 
take  up  the  complaint.  My  suggestion  of  a  reference 
was  not  dictated  by  my  own  personal  wishes  or  feel- 
ings, but  only  by  a  desire  that  the  parties  should  have 
a  full  opportunity  of  having  justice  done  them.  But 
the  fact  here  stated  has  entirely  altered  my  judgment, 
and  1  am  now  prepared  to  act  out  our  system.  It  has 
been  reported,  T  know,  that  I  am  about  to  turn  Epis- 
copalian ;  but  I  do  not  believe  it.  I  hold  that  I  am 
now  as  much  a  Bishop  as  even  the  Pope  himsell  can 
make  me.  I  believe  that  the  Presbyterian  system  will 
be  found  to  be  most  scriptural  and  also  the  most  polit- 


MR.   BARNES.  17 

jc  of  all  systems  of  Evan2;elical  Government.  And  I 
am  rejoiced  that  we  have  an  opportunity,  in  so  large 
and  full  a  meeting  to  declare  what  are  our  opinions 
touching  mutters  of  doctrine.  Alihouj^h  it  has  been 
truly  stated  that  we  have  but  little  influence  in  cer- 
tain parts  of  this  union;  yet  let  me  tell  gentlemen 
that  when  this  present  excitement  shall  be  over,  when 
all  that  is  now  cried  up  as  a  novelty  shall  be  buried 
and  forgotten,  the  judj^ment  of  this  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia will  stand,  and  will  endure,  as  one  of  the  bright- 
est pages  in  the  history  ol'tlie  church.  1  have  there- 
fore always  rested  in  calm  satisfaction  as  to  the  ulti- 
mate issue  of  tiie  existing  crisis  of  our  affairs,  not- 
withstanding all  the  prejudice  that  prevails,  all  the 
slanders  that  are  uttered,  and,  worst  of  all,  notwith- 
standing that  our  usefulness  has  for  a  time  been  crip- 
pled. Moderator  I  leel  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
rests  upon  the  rock  of  ages  : — and  if  every  man  would 
boldly  give  his  testimony  against  the  errors  prevail- 
ing in  liis  da)^,  he  would  stand,  with  her,  upon  the 
same  rock  of  ages.  And,  sir,  I  believe,  that  the  time 
is  not  far  distant  when  all  this  enthusiasm  wliich  now 
so  violently  agitates  some  portions  of  our  church  will 
have  subsided — - 

(Here  a  member  enquired — Have  these  remarks 
any  thing  to  do  with  the  question  before  the  House? 
There  was  a  good  deal  of  movement.  Some  called 
the  member  to  order,  and  some  Mr.  Winchester.) 

Mr.  Winchester.  Some  of  the  members  take  ad- 
vantage of  a  peculiarity  of  mine:  they  know  that  I 
am  easily  put  out,  when  speaking.  I  cfid  not  believe 
it  would  be  unwelcome  that  1  should  eulogize  the  sys- 
tem I  have  sworn  to  support. 

Mr.  McCalla  hoped  the  call  would  be  withdrawn. 
The  brother  might  not  be  strictly  in  order,  yet  still 
the  House  loved  the  swoop  of  his  wing,  even  in  his 
wanderings. 

A  member  stated  that  a  count  had  been  kept,  and 
that  the  speaker  had  used  the  personal  pronoun  of  the 
first  person  fifty-five  times  in  8  minutes.  Must  the. 
House  sit  and  listen  to  this  ? 

Remonstrance  was  made  with  warmth  against  re- 
marks of  this  kind. 

Dr.  Ely.  When  a  member  speaks  half  an  hour 
without  once  touching  the  subject  before  the  House, 
is  he  to  be  permitted  to  go  on?  even  though  his 
speech  may  have  been  committed  ever  so  well? 

The  Moderator  endeavored  to  repress  the  confu- 
sion. The  best  way,  he  beheved,  in  such  cases,  was 
to  allow  the  member  to  go  on,  though  he  might  be 
speaking  somewhat  from  the  point.  It  would  be  found 
the  shortest  course  in  the  end.  I  decide  that  the 
member  is  not  out  of  order  :  if  any  one  wishes  an  ap- 
peal let  it  be  taken. 


18  TRIAL    OF 

(No  appeal  was  taken.) 

Mr.  Baunf.s.  I  widli  only  to  say  that  I  shall  be  obll-^ 
god  to  the  Moderator  and  the  members  of  Synod,  if 
ihey  will  bear  in  mind  an  observation  which  fell,  I 
think,  more  than  once  from  brother  Winchester,  viz. 
that  he  had  examined  the  case  and  was  ready  to  give 
judgment  upon  it.  I  wish  this  remembered,  because 
it  may  be  my  duty,  hereafter,  to  object  to  his  retain- 
ing his  seat  as  a  judijc,  in  a  cause  which,  according 
to  his  own  declaration,  he  had  prejuged  belore  he 
heard  it. 

Mr.  Winchester.  I  have  explained  that  and 
stated  the  contrary.  If  brother  Barnes  is  not  dis- 
posed to  take  my  word,  he  has  a  perfect  right  to  his 
own  opinion. 

Dr.  Green.  Much  is  said  about  Mr.  Barnes  which  I 
apprehend  is  not  all  to  the  jjoint.  The  parlies  in  this 
cause  are  not  Mr.  Barnes  and  the  appellant,  but  the 
Second  Presbytery  and  the  appellant.  Mr.  Barnes  is 
not,  directly,  a  party  here.  I  have  been  surprised  to 
hear  brethren  speaking  and  arguing  on  the  assump- 
tion that  Mr.  Barnes  is  a  party  here  to  be  tried.  As 
to  the  adoption  of  the  Report  of  the  Judicial  Conuiiit- 
tee  recommending  us  to  issue  this  appeal,  if  we  reject 
the  report  and  reler  the  case  to  the  Assembly  what 
shall  we  gain?  We  shall  leave  the  cause  undecided, 
and  our  churches  in  suspense  for  six  months  more. 
And  if  the  Assembly  should,  after  all,  send  the  case 
back  to  us,  then  there  will  a  whole  year  have  been 
lost.  I  think  that  duty  to  ourselves  and  the  church, 
as  well  as  kindness  to  the  parties  concerned,  demand 
of  us  that  we  proceed  and  try  the  case. 

Mr.  R.  Breckiniudge.  I  must  enter  my  dissent  to 
the  position  taken  by  the  worihy  father  who  has  just 
taken  his  seat.  The  Second  Presbytery  is  not  a  par- 
ty here.  Mr.  Barnes  and  Mr.  DulHeld  are  the  par- 
ties ;  (a  laugh) — I  beg  pardon — Mr.  Barnes  and  Dr. 
Junkin  I  meant  to  say.  These  are  the  original  par- 
ties ;  and  the  book  makes  them  the  parties  here. 

Mr.  Wynkoop.  The  appeal,  as  I  understand  it,  is 
certainly  to  be  decided  between  the  appellant  and  the 
Presbytery.  Now  you  are  soon  about  to  dissolve  the 
Presbytery  :  and  if  you  refer  the  case  and  then  dis- 
solve the  Presbytery,  the  Assembly  may  say  this  ap- 
peal is  from  the  decision  ol  a  court  wJuch  is  no  longer 
m  existence,  and  may  refuse  to  issue  it.  Thus  the 
whole  case  may  be  thrown  out  of  the  church.  This 
is  an  important  consideration. 

If  you  reler  the  case,  you  will  be  constrained  to 
keep  the  Presbytery  in  existence,  that  it  may  be  a 
party.  Surely  the  Assembly  will  not  try  the  Presby- 
tery after  it  is  defunct.  And  should  the  Assembly 
refuse  to  act,  it  is  obvious  that  the  evil  must  be  long 
continued.    That  there  is  an  evil  on  which  this  Sy- 


MR.    BARNES.  19 

nod  ought  to  act  is  out  of  the  question.  Either  there 
is  a  great  evil  in  Mr.  Barnes  being  unj'istly  accused, 
or  there  is  an  evil  in  some  ol"  the  princii)les  ofour  con- 
stitution. II'Mr.  Barnes  is  guilty,  liien  we  shall  be 
guilty  of  continuing  him  as  a  niinisier  all  the  while 
the  cause  is  hereafter  delayed.  The  evil,  either  way, 
ought  not  to  be  continued.  There  are  now  about  se- 
ven months  to  the  meeting  of  Assembly  :  and  though 
the  Assembly  may  not  refuse  to  receive  our  reference, 
still  they  may  send  back  the  case  to  us  for  further  ac- 
tion, and  then  we  shall  stand  just  as  we  stand  now, 
only  with  the  additional  di^•ad  vantage  of  being  thought 
disposed  to  persecute.  As  officers  charged  with  the 
order  of  God's  house,  we  are  bound  not  to  cause  this 
delay.  For  one,  I  can  promise  a  zealous  and  laithl'ul 
discharge  of  my  duty,  whatever  persecution  or  oppo- 
sition it  may  subject  me  to.  And  I  ask  my  brethren 
whether  they  are  willing  to  leave  it  to  a  mere  perad- 
venture  whether  the  cause  of  truth  shull  not  suffer 
during  all  this  probable  delay  ?  Or  are  they  willing,  if 
Mr.  Barnes  is  innocent,  that  his  character  should  tlius 
long  suffer  wrongfully? 

Mr.  MCai.la.  There  is  nobody  that  I  have  heard 
now  advocating  the  reference.  The  speaking  is  all 
one  side. 

Mr.  VVynkoop.  True:  the  speaking  thus  far,  has 
been  only  on  one  side  :  but  does  not  the  brotlier  per- 
ceive that  the  other  side  are  holding  back  until  we 
shall  have  spent  all  our  ammunition,  and  then  they 
Avill  fire  at  us  ?  I  am  for  anticipatmg  them,  and  firing 
at  them.  I  hope  we  shall  continue  the  fire,  and  shall 
take  good  aim.  Mr.  Moderator,  if  we  are  to  send  up 
this  case  it  must  be  for  one  of  two  reasons,  (cries  of 
adjourn)  either  because  we  are  doubtful  ofour  ability 
to  decide  the  case,  or  for  the  sake  of  gaining  votes.  If 
brethren  take  the  first  ground  (cries  of  adjourn  in- 
crease) and  say  they  consider  the  case  as  doubtful; 
and  if  Synod  cannot  tell  what  is  in  a  book  which  is  laid 
before  them —    *    *    * 

[Here  a  motion  was  made  to  adjourn,  and  the  Chair 
seemed  disposed  to  entertain  the  motion.  Much  con- 
fusion ensued,  many  remonstrating  against  thus  ta- 
king a  member  oti"  his  feet  while  addressing  the 
Chair.] 

Moderator.  The  Chair  decides  that  it  is  in  order 
to  move  an  adjournment  while  a  member  is  speaking. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  It  is  an  unparallelled  deci- 
sion. Such  a  thing  was  never  heard  of  in  any  delibe- 
rative body  I  ever  saw  or  read  of.  Even  in  the  British 
Parliament  the  only  way  to  get  a  member  off  his  legs 
is  to  cough  him  down,  and  make  such  a  noise  with 
tfieii-  feet  that  he  cannot  be  heard. 

Mr.  Eustace.  The  decision  is  not  unparallelled; 
it  has  had  more  than  one  parallel  already. 


20  TRIAL   OF 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  If  the  Moderator  adherCiS  to 
his  decision,  I  shall  most  certainly  take  an  appeal. 

The  MopuRATOR  said  that  fcuch  had  been  his  opi- 
rion,  but  if  the  House  decided  otherwise,  he  should 
not  be  strenuous.     The  member  migrht  proceed. 

Mr.  Wynkoop.  1  was  willing  to  have  drawn  the 
lew  words  I  Jiad  to  say  to  a  close,  to  make  way  lor  the 
motion  of  adjournment :  but  I  will  not  allow  the  rude- 
ness of  any  man  to  put  me  down.  I  was  observing 
that  to  represent  the  case  as  one  of  a  doubtful  nature 
v.'ould  prejudice  the  Assembly  aeain.st  it  on  the  thres- 
hold— Lniuch  coughing  in  the  house] — I  can  give  way 
to  a  gentlemanly  retjuest,  but  I  never  will  yield  to  ill 
manners.  [Coughing  and  scraping,  and  cries  of  ques- 
tion.] It  is  not  a  charge  which  injures  a  man,  but  it 
is  the  justice  of  the  charge  which  affects  him. 

[Here  the  Synod  became  extremely  impatient,  and 
Mr.  Wynkoop,  at  the  request  of  friends,  waived  his 
right  to  proceed.] 

The  question  on  the  adoption  of  the  report,  wasnaw 
put  and  carried,  nevi.  con. 

So  the  Synod  resolved  to  take  up  and  issue  Dr- 
Junkin's  appeal.  The  Moderator  thereupon  admo- 
nished the  Synod  as  is  prescribed  in  the  constitution. 

Synod  then  adjourned  till  to-morrow.  Closed  with 
prayer. 

Friday  morning,  Oct.  30, 

The  order  of  the  day  being  to  receive  the  reports 
of  the  several  Presbyteries  on  the  state  of  rehgiorv 
within  their  bounds, 

Dr.  McDowell-  hoped  that  the  reports,  as  they 
were  successively  delivered  in,  would  be  read  at 
length.    He  wanted  to  hear  them. 

Mr.  McCalla  was  opposed  to  this.  Mr.  Modera- 
tor, some  of  us  are  hearing  men,  and  some  of  us  are 
working  men.  I  think  we  have  that  to  do  which  is 
infinitely  more  important  than  to  sit  and  listen  to 
these  reports  on  the  state  of  religion.  Our  action  an 
that  subject,  and  the  spirit  which  seems  to  animate 
this  large  assembly  of  the  rulers  and  teachers  of  the 
church,  is  a  far  better  indication  of  the  true  state  of 
religion  in  our  bound.>,  than  any  thing  in  those  re- 
ports. 

Mr.  Dickey  wished  the  whole  to  be  read  :  he  wish- 
ed the  Synod  to  hear  these  reports.  They  would, 
among  other  things,  go  far  to  show  to  what  an  ex- 
tent the  Sabbath  was  violated  ;  and  it  was  the  desire 
of  the  New  Castle  Presbytery,  that  that  subject 
should  be  especially  attended  to. 

Mr.  De  Witt  moved  to  postj)one  the  orders  of  th«> 
day. 

A  question  being  raised  whellier  that  wo.uld  b,e  it^ 
order, 


MR.    BARNES.  21 

Dr.  GnKEN  said  nothing  could  be  more  so;  or  more 
common  in  deliberative  bodies. 

Mr.  iVIoRss  renewed  the  motion  to  poBtpone. 

Dr.  J.  Breckenridge  opposed  the  postponement, 
because  the  committee  appomted  to  draft  the  narra- 
tive wanted  these  papers  in  their  hands,  that  they 
might  be  able  to  prepare  their  report. 

Mr.  Vowel  warmly  opposed  ihe  dispensinsr  with 
the  refiding  of  these  reports,  and  the  postpanement. 
What  could  be  of  more  iniitortance  than  the  condi- 
tion ol>eligion?  What  oulHu.  to  be  considered  in 
preference  to  this  by  a  body  of'  Christian  ministers 
and  representatives  of  Christian  people?  The  Sy- 
nod had  resolved  that  on  this  morning  tiiese  reports 
should  be  called  for,  and  in  what  could  its  time  be 
more  profitably  spent?  He  hoped  they  would  be 
read.     Tliere  were  many  very  anxious  to  hear  them. 

The  question  on  postponement  bcincr  put,  it  was 
carried  by  a  very  large  majority. 

So  the  first  order  of  the  day  was  postponed,  and 
the  Synod  resumed  the 

CASE    OP   REV.    ALBERT    RARNE3. 

MonERATOR.  The  first  question  to  be  asked,  be- 
fore proceeding  to  consider  and  is.suc  the  appeal  of 
Dr.  Junkin,  is  required  to  be  this:  Did  the  appellant 
proceed  in  an  orderly  manner,  and  lodge  his  com- 
pliiint  with  the  hierher  judicatory  in  the  way  required 
by  our  constitution?  On  tbis  subject,  the  judicial 
committee  of  ihe  Synod  had  made  a  report,  stating 
that  the  appellant  had  proceeded  in  an  orderly  man- 
ner. 

Dr.  Ely.  Are  all  the  documents  connected  with 
this  case  now  in  the  house? 

The  Moderator  having  replied  to  the  interrogato- 
ry that  the  records  of  the  court  below  were  neces- 
sary. 

Dr.  Ely  said  he  had  been  instructed  by  the  Assem- 
bly's Second  Presbytery  to  lay  before  Synod  a  minute 
by  them  adopted  and  entered  upon  their  records,  de- 
clining the  jurisdiction  of  this  Synod  in  the  premises. 

MoBERATOR.     Wdl  the  Synod  hear  this  paper  ? 

Mr.  R.  BRECKrNRiDGE.  Not  unless  it  is  from  one  of 
the  parties.  If  Mr.  Barnes  pleads  to  the  jurisdiction 
ol  the  court,  we  are  ready  to  hear  him. 

MonERATOR.  Is  the  sentence  of  the  Presbytery, 
appealed  from  here,  present  ? 

Dr.  Ely  now  read  the  minute  of  Presbytery,  as 
follows : 

At  a  meeting  of  the  [Assembly's]  Second  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  at  York,  Pa.  Oct.  29th,  1835,  the  following 
minute  was  adopted,  viz: 

"  Whereas  the  General  Assembly  of  our  Church  dissolved 
the  Synod  of  Delaware,  at  and  after  the  meeting  of  the  Sy- 
nod of  Philadelphia,  which  occurred  yesterday ;  whereas  the 


22  TRIAL    OF 

said  Assembly  passed  no  order  for  the  transfer  of  the  books, 
minutes,  and  unfinished  proceetiings  of  the  Synod  of  Dela- 
ware and  of  tiie  Presbyteries  then  belonging  to  the  same,  to 
any  other  Synod  or  judicatory  ;  and  whereas  his  utterly  in- 
consistent with  reason  and  the  excellent  standards  of  our 
church,  that  any  Presbytery  should  be  amenable  to  more 
than  one  Synod  at  the  same  time,  therefore  Resolved,  that 
the  Presbytery  will  and  hereby  does  decHne  to  submit  its 
books,  records,  and  proceedings,  prior  to  this  dale,  to  the  re- 
view and  control  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  until  the 
General  Assembly  shall  take  some  order  on  this  sublet." 
A  true  copy  from  the  minutes. 

Geo.  Dlffield,  Clerk. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridgk.  I  move  that  that  paper  be 
laid  on  the  tahie,  and  that  Mr.  Barnes  be  now  called 
upon  to  say  whetJier  he  is  ready  for  trial. 

Moderator.  Let  this  paper  be  inserted  on  the  mi- 
nutes of  Synod,  as  an  answer  of  the  Assembly's  2d 
Presbytery  to  the  demand  of  the  Synod  for  the  pa- 
pers in  the  case. 

Is  the  appellant  now  ready  to  proceed? 

Ur.  JuNKiN.  I  am  ready,  and  I  will  now  read  the 
rule  in  our  constitution  upon  which  1  rely  for  the  tes- 
timony produced  before  tlie  Presbytery  in  support  of 
my  complaint  against  Mr.  Barnes.  It  is  in  the  fal- 
lowing words : 

Chap.  7,  sec.  3,  sub.  sec.  16.  It  shall  alwa3:s  be  deemed 
the  duly  of  the  judicatory,  whose  judgment  is  appealed  from, 
to  send  auihcntic  copies  of  all  their  records,  and  of  the  whole 
testimony  relating  to  the  matter  of  the  appeal.  And  if  any 
judicatory  shall  neglect  its  duty  in  this  respect;  especially,  if 
thereby  an  appellant,  who  has  conducted  with  regularity  on 
his  part,  is  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  having  his  appeal  sea- 
sonably issued;  such  judicatory  shall  be  censured  according 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  ease. 

On  this  clause  of  our  constitution  I  rest  for  the  do- 
cuments. Wlien  the  appeal  was  taken  from  the  sen- 
tence of  the  Presbytery,  acquitting  Mr.  Barnes,  I 
proposed  to  carry  up  the  cause  at  once  to  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  on  account  of  the  diliicully  that  might 
attend  the  question  of  jurisdiction.  The  Synod  of 
Delaware  had  adjourned,  as  I  understood,  sine  die; 
at  least  I  could  find  no  time  fixed  ibr  its  meeting  (un- 
less I  chcse  to  rely  on  a  memorandum  in  Mr.  Patter- 
son's pocket-b>'ok);  but  I  consented  to  let  m^  appeal 
lie  to  this  Synod:  and  I  now  depend  on  the  faithful- 
pess  ol  the  Presbytery  lor  the  production  of  the 
records.  They  mrde  no  objection,  at  the  time  of  my 
appeal,  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Synod. 

Moderator.    Is  Mr.  Barnes  ready  for  trial? 

Mr.  Barnes.  I  supposed  that  the  Presbytery  was 
a  party  in  this  cause.  But  if  Synod  say  that  1  am 
one  of  the  parties,  and  not  the  Presbytery,  I  am  rea- 
dy.  1  expected,  however,  to  come  m,  onjy  as  a  meiri- 


MR.    BARNES.  23 

her  of  my  Presbytery,  and  not  as  a  parly  to  tlif; 
cause.  On  this  point  the  Synod  will  determine.  The 
rules  say  that  tlie  orig^inal  parLies  are  first  to  be 
heard,  and  then  the  judicatory  appealed  from. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  I  was  incorrect  in  saying  that  the  Sy- 
nod of  Delaware  had  no  record  of  the  date  to  which  it 
stood  adjourned. 

Mr.  Barne.s.  I  came  here  fully  prepared  for  the 
trial;  that  is,  with  ail  the  prepnralion  I  was  able  to 
make.  1  have  all  the  papers  here;  and  so  far  as  I 
am  personally  concerneu,  I  am  ready. 

Dr.  McDowEL.  I  am  persuaded  some  are  under  a 
wrong:  impression  as  to  who  are  the  parties  before 
Synod.  A  respected  father  (Dr.  Green)  has  told  us 
that  the  parlies  in  this  trial  are  the  appellant,  Dr. 
Junkin,  and  the  2d  Presbytery,  from  whose  act  he 
api)eals.  This  was  the  old  practice:  but  it  is  not  so 
since  the  adoption  of  our  new  book.  The  book  now 
provides  that  the  original  parties,  that  is,  Dr.  Junkin 
and  Mr.  Barlies,  and  then  the  judicatory  is  to  be 
heard  in  explanation  of  its  own  decision.  The  Pres- 
bytery then  are  not  a  party  at  all. 

MoDERATOu.  I  have  decided  that  the  original  par- 
lies before  Synod  are  Dr.  Junkin  and  Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  Eustace.  The  parties  before  Synod  can  only 
be  the  appellant  and  the  Presbytery ;  not  the  original 
parties. 

MoDERATER.  Tlic  book  prescribcs  that  the  origin- 
al parties  are  to  be  heard,  and  the  Presbytery  is  a 
parly  only  to  be  heard  afterwards  in  vindication  of  its 
decision. 

Chap.  7.  sec.  3.  sub.  sec.  8.  In  taking  up  an  appeal,  after 
ascertaining  that  the  appellant  on  his  part,  has  conducted  it 
regularly,  xhejirst  step  shall  be  to  read  the  sentence  appealed 
from:  secondli/,  to  read  the  reasons  which  were  assigned  by 
the  appellant  for  his  appeal,  and  which  are  oa  record  :  thirdly, 
to  read  the  whole  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  inferior  ju- 
dicatory in  the  case,  including  all  the  testimony,  and  the 
reasons  of  their  decision  :  fuurtlily,  to  hear  the  original  yax- 
lies:  Jiflkly,  to  hear  any  of  the  members  of  the  inferior  judi- 
catory, in  explanation  of  the  grounds  of  their  decision,  or  of 
their  dissent  from  it. 

Mr.  R.  BRECKiNRroGE.  I  move  you  that  the  Stated 
Clerk  of  the  Assembly's  2d  Presbytery  be  ordered  im- 
mediately to  lay  on  the  table  of  this  Synod  so  much 
of  the  records  of  that  Presbytery  as  relate  to  the 
case  ol  Dr.  Junkin  and  Mr.  Barnes. 

Dr.  Green.  The  appeal  of  Dr.  Junkin  was  from 
the  decision  of  the  2d  Presbytery.  I  admit  it  to  bo 
right  to  hear  the  original  parties;  but  the  appeal  is 
from  the  act  of  the  Presbytery,  and  iroio  that  alone. 

Mr.  R.  IjRECKiNRiDGE  having  re^^uced  his  motion 
into  the  form  of  a  written  order. 

Dr.  Cathcart.    When  the  jiariies  say  they  are 


2t  TRIAL   OF 

not  rendy  lor  trial,  can  a  judicatory  compel  them, 
nolens  volens,  to  come  forward  and  be  tried  ?  1  never 
heard  of  sucli  a  doctrine.  It  is  new  to  me,  a  new 
thinj^  under  the  eun.  1  never  saw  or  heard  ol  such 
a.  fhui^,  and  I  have  sat  in  Ibrty  Synods. 

Mr.  11.  jBreckinridge.  This  is  a  court;  and  the 
appeiiaiU  and  ai)pcllce  have  declared  tlieinselves  rea- 
dy lor  trial,  and  here  is  a  party  who  happens,  acci- 
dentally, to  have  the  evidence  on  which  the  cause 
luius,  in  his  pocket:  he  enterc!  an  inttrpleadej-,  and 
says  tnat  he  will  not  deliver  them  up.  Il'it  was  in  a 
civil  court,  we  should  very  quickly  know  what  to  do 
with  him.  Moderator  we  should  send  him  to  jail. 
Sir,  the  records  ol"  the  universe  do  not  show  such  a 
case.  The  judge  bel.iw,  whose  decision  is  appealed 
from,  puts  the  records  ia  his  pocket,  and  takes  them 
iiome  witii  him;  ajid  then  pleads  to  the  jurisdiciion  of 
the  couit  above,  and  when  the  records  are  called  lor, 
refuses  to  give  them  Up.  1  aver  that  such  a  case  ne- 
ver occurred  in  the  universe  of  God  until  this  ilay. 
But.  if  the  2  I  Presbytery  refuse  to  produce  their  re- 
cords, we  cannot,  it  is  true,  send  the.n  to  jail ;  but 
there  is  another  tiling  we  can  do  :  11  they  stand  out, 
and  refuse  us  the  records,  we  can  proceed,  without 
the  records,  on  the  next  best  testimony  we  can  ob- 
tain. If  they  I'raudulently  withhold  thu  evidet,ce,  we 
can  take  the  best  evidence  the  case  will  allow.  We 
can  order  them  to  produce  the  books:  if  they  will  not 
do  It,  1  think  the  Olerk  of  that  Presbytery  should  be 
arraigned  ;  but  in  the  meantime  we  can  go  ahead. 

Dr.'ELY.  When  a  party  pleads  to  the  jurisdiction 
ofa  court  before  which  it  is  to  be  tried,  it  is  usual  to 
permit  the  jjarty  lo  be  heard.  It  may  be  a  conscien- 
tious objection,  fcjurely  they  ought  to  be  heard  in 
explanation  of  it.  If  itsliall  turn  out  that  in  this  case 
there  has  been  what  Websrer  called  "  a  leak  in  the 
law,"  that  leak  should  be  stopped.  You  have  no 
rijzht  to  direct  oar  Clerk  to  obey  yon:  he  is  bound  to 
oBey  only  the  orders  of  his  own  Pre.-bytery.  You 
can  hang,  draw,  and  quarter  us.  and  drag  our  car 
case  before  the  Assembly.  But  it  will  be  well  for  you 
to  recollect,  that  our  proceedings  previous  to  the 
date  of  the  commencement  of  your  power  over  us  are 
not  subject  to  your  revision,  and  you  have  no  power 
to  bring  them  before  you.  Those  acts  can  now  be  re- 
vised only  by  the  highest  tribunal  of  the  church.  The 
case  stands  just  so:  and  I  hope  there  will  be  no  exhi- 
bitions ot  wriith  about  the  matter.  The  Clerk  of 
the  2d  Presbytery  is  their  olTicer,  and  the  Synod  has 
no  power  to  "  arraign"  any  one  ol  its  members  for 
not  obeying  those  who  have  no  right  to  command 
iiim. 

MoDERAToa.    The  Presbytery  had  no  right  to  enter 
its  plea.    Such  a  plea  can  be  received  only  from  one 


M&.   BARNES.  25 

of  the  original  parties  in  this  cause.  The  paper  pre- 
sented here  has  not  been  received  as  a  plea  to  our 
jurisdiction:  it  is  entered  on  our  records  only  as  tlie 
Presbytery's  reply  to  our  demand  for  their  records 
in  this  case. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  Was  it  not  Dr.  Ely  himselT 
who  in  the  General  Assembly  i)roposed  the  plan  oi' 
referring  the  whole  subject  to  tiie  fcJynod  of  Philadel- 
phia by  dissolvino-  the  iSynod  of  Delaware?  If  that 
was  intended  as  a  trap,  it  is  plain  the  Synod  have 
fallen  into  it.  It  is  at  least  soniewhai  singular  that  it 
should  have  been  Ihe  same  individual  who  laid  the 
plan,  and  who  now  takes  advantage  of  it  to  thwart 
our  proceedings. 

Dr.  Ely.  1  did  draw  up  the  plan  the  brother  refers 
to,  but  had  it  remained  as  I  drew  it,  no  such  advan- 
tage would  have  been  taken.  It  was  not  I,  but  one 
of  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  (Dr.  Miller)  who  altered 
the  plan  as  it  came  from  my  hands,  by  inserting  the 
words  "at  and  afier  :"  the  effect  of  which  was,  that 
the  Synod  of  Delaware  remained  in  existence,  and  in 
all  its  rights,  until  tlie  day  this  Synod  convened. 
These  words  occasioned  an  important  difference  in 
the  lorm  and  effect  ot  the  Resolution.  As  for  the 
transfer  of  the  records  it  was  a  thing  I  never  thought 
about.  The  omission  of  any  provision  on  that  subject 
was  a  mere  slip  of  the  memory  :  a  lapsus  in  legisla- 
tion :  and  possibly  it  was  permitted  by  Providence 
that  it  might  afford  that  protection  to  tlie  Presbytery 
which  is  now  contended  for.  We  plead  to  your  juris- 
diction as  having  no  retrospective  control.  From  the 
day  of  your  meeting,  "at  and  after"  that  day  we 
became  subject  to  your  control:  but  till  then  you 
have  no  power  in  respect  to  us  or  our  doings. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  I  hope  Providence  is  not  to 
be  charged  with  our  lapsus  of  legislation,  whether 
intentional  or  otherwise. 

Dr.  Cathcart.  The  parties  in  this  cause  were 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  another  Synod,  which  con- 
tinued in  being  till  the  23th  of  October  instant,  but 
which  reased  to  exist  the  moment  we  convened.  As 
that  Synod  no  longer  remains  to  receive  and  issue 
the  appeal,  it  must  come  here.  Now  one  of  the  par- 
ties declares  itself  not  to  be  ready  for  trial :  and  there 
seems  to  me  something  inquisitorial  in  our  attempt- 
ing to  compel  them  to  stand  a  trial,  ready  or  not 
ready.  We  condemn  the  inquisition  in  Spain  and 
Portugal:  I  hope  we  shall  not  introduce  it  here.  I 
never  heard  of  such  a  proceeding  before. 

M0DERA.T0R.  Botli  the  parties  declare  that  they 
are  ready  for  trial. 

Dr.  Cathcart.  Do  they  ?  I  did  not.Jiear  that. 
My  hearing  as  you  all  must  peiceive  isS'ery  defec- 
Uve, 


•26  TRIAL   OF 

Mr.  Patterson  of  Philadelphia.  It  was  the  opin- 
ion ol'the  court  below,  and  on  looking  at  the  chapter 
on  api-eals,  in  our  Book  ol"  Discipline,  1  am  ol'  the 
same  opinion  that 

Mr.  11.  Bkeckimudce  "ailed  to  order.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  2d  Presbytery  had  no  ris^ht  now  to  speak. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Tlie  b(ok  declares  that  they  are 
not  to  be  heard  till  alter  the  original  partien. 

Moderator.  We  have  the  answer  of  that  Presby- 
tery in  writing.  It  has  been  heard,  and  peel  on  our 
minutes. 

Dr.  CuvLER.  I  move  to  amend  the  words  of  the 
order  moved  by  brother  Breckinridge  for  the  books 
of  the  Presbytery  by  striking  out  the  Words  "stated 
clerk  of"  :  so  that  the  order  should  be  directed  to  the 
.Presbytery. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge  assented  to  this  modification. 

Mr.  Dlffield  here  rose  and  was  addressing  the 
chair. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge  and  Mr.  M'Calla  called  to 
order,  and  Mr.  Dulfit- Id  yielded  the  floor. 

Mr.  Magun'ly.  1  am  in  favor  of  the  motion.  No 
acts  of  the  Assembly  can  set  aside  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution ;  and  the  Constitution  orders  the 
production  ol  those  records. 

Mr.  H.  R.  VViLso.N.  When  the  appeal  was  taken 
by  Dr.  Junkin,  did  the  Presbytery  consent  to  the  juris- 
dictioji  of  this  Synod?  or  did  they  enter  their  plea  to 
our  jurisdiction  at  ihai  time  ? 

Moderator.  It  appears  'rom  the  date  that  this 
act  was  not  done  until  yesterday. 

Mr.  \ViL30N  resumed.  It  is  strange  if  they  are  to 
withhold  their  records  while  there  is  an  appeal  taken 
from  their  decisions.  It  certainly  was  never  designed 
by  the  Assembly  that  the  lecords  should  be  withheld 
in  any  case  whivh  came  regularly  before  this  body. 
It  is  pcrlectiy  plain  to  my  mind  ihat  Synod  has  a  right 
to  pass  the  order  proposed.  Nor  does  it  evince  much 
of  generosity  or  magnanimity  in  these  brethren  thus 
to  avail  iJieniselvcs  oi'  a  slip  in  legislation.  The  As- 
sembly had  no  thought  of  such  a  state  of  things. 
Surely  when  they  made  the  Presbyteries  formerly 
itnder  the  Synod  of  Delaware  to  constitute  a  compo- 
nent part  of  this  l)ody,  they  concluded  that  those 
Presbyteries  should  be  subject  to  our  control.  Our 
Book  of  Discipline  requires  them  in  case  of  an  appeal 
to  send  up  tlieir  records  :  and  if  they  refuse  to  do  it, 
we  may  censure  them  for  their  disobedience.  Synod 
may  order  up  the  records,  and  if  the  Presbytery  re- 
fuses them,  it  becomes  liable  to  the  censures  of  the 
church,  and  we  tiiay  then  proceed  with  the  best  evi- 
dence we  can  get.  1  lor  one  am  ready  to  meet  the 
case.  Sure  1  am  the  Assembly  will  never  censure 
us  lor  passing  such  an  order  :  tor  should  they  do  so, 


MR.    BARNES.  27 

ihey  would  virtually  be  censuring  their   own  pro- 
ceedinfi^s. 

Dr.  Green.  The  period  in  my  Ion;;?  life  is  now 
passed  in  which  I  can  say  much.    I  im-rcly  wisih  at 

f  resent  ro  read  a  clause  Ibom  our  Book  of  Discipline.^ 
Dr.  G.  here  quoted  the  rule  o''  proceediiij^  in  case  of 
an  appeal,  and  the  order  in  which  the  parties  are  to 
be  hearil]  I  must  confess  I  have  been  rather  surprised 
to  hear  the  position  advanced  that  the  Presbytery 
are  no  party  in  any  wise  in  this  cause.  It  tliey  are 
no  party  why  are  they  to  be  heard  ?  The  book  di- 
rects that  they  shall  be  heard  in  explanation  of  their 
acts:  but  why  so,  if  thev  are  no  parties?  Surely 
they  are  made  a  party  by  this  rule,  although  they  are 
to  be  heard  the  last  in  order.  We  are  now  however 
arrested  by  a  refusal  of  the  record  of  the  sentence 
below. 
Mr.  Dickey.     Although    there    is,    probably,    no 

Eower  in  this  Synod  to  compel  the  delivery  of  those 
ooks  for  our  review,  might  not  the  Presbytery  be 
persuaded  to  give  an  extract  from  so  much  of  their 
records  as  relates  to  this  case  alone.  It  certainly 
looks  ill  on  their  part  thus  to  arrest  the  course  of  our 
proceedings.  They  have,  no  doubt,  the  form  of  the 
act  of  Assembly  in  their  favor,  il  they  choose  to  in- 
sist upon  it :  but  they  may  perhaps  consent  to  waive 
their  refusal- 
Mr.  Hill.  I  can  state  what  Avas  the  impression  of 
the  Assembly  in  regard  to  this  Synod.  The  very 
reason  why  that  body  did  not  dissolve  the  Synod  of 
Delaware  on  the  spot,  was  the  information  that  the 
Synod  was  not  to  meet  until  after  the  meeting  ol  this 
body.  Then  its  constitutional  existence  would  be 
destroyed,  and  its  papers  would,  of  course,  come  re- 
gularly before  us. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  I  was  out  part  of  this  morning,  and 
was  not  till  now  aware  that  any  motion  had  been 
made  to  compel  a  Presbytery  to  do  this  or  that. 
Now  as  I  talk  much  against  compulsion  in  old  mother 
church,  I  ought  in  consistency  to  be  equally  opposed 
to  it  in  any  of  her  daughters.  I  am  for  order :  but  not 
for  compulsion.  Now  in  my  contests  with  the  Pa- 
pists, and  they  have  a  false  point  to  i»rove,  I  have  al- 
ways heard  them  talk  much  about  Paul  and  about 
the  fathers:  and  experience  has  taught  me  that  the 
very  best  way  to  refute  all  such  arguments,  was  to 
go  to  Paul  and  to  go  to  the  fathers,  i  have  generally 
found  them  confuted  by  their  own  authorities.  Now 
if  we  pursue  the  same  course  I  think  we  shall  arrive 
at  pretty  much  the  same  result.  If  we  go  to  the  re- 
cords of  the  Assembly  we  shall  find  no  such  wonder- 
ful charm  in  these  words  "  at  and  after."  If  it  be 
true  that  they  were  inserted  by  Dr.  Miller,  I  am  very 
certain  that  it  never  was  his  intention  to  produce 


*28  TRIAL    OF 

such  a  state  of  thing's  as  this.  The  intention  was  to 
place  that  Presbytery  under  the  jurit-diction  of  this 
Synod.  1  am  told  that  Dr.  Junkin  would  state,  if 
called  upon,  that  wfien  he  declared  his  iniention  to 
take  an  appeal  from  the  sentence  of  the  Presbytery, 
he  enquired  whether  he  could  appeal  to  this  Synod: 
and  the  answer  he  received  was  such  as  will  justify 
a  call  for  the  papers. 

Mr.  Davie.  I  understood  Dr.  Junkin  to  say  that 
the  Synod  of  Delaware  stood  adjourned  to  meet  on 
the  28lh  of  October. 

Dr.  Ju.NKiN.    You  misunderstood  me. 

Mr.  Davie.  It  it  was  not  aojourned  to  meet  before 
that  day,  then,  as  there  could  be  no  pro  re  nuta  meet- 
ing, with  the  reception  of  that  Synod  and  those  Pres- 
byteries into  this  Synod,  all  their  books  and  papers 
which  do  not  prejudice  individuals  in  those  Presbyte- 
ries or  that  Synod  are  of  course  the  property  of  this 
Synod.  It  is  a  matter  of  right  that  we  shall  respect 
and  review  them.  The  plea  of  the  Presbytery  says 
that  no  Presbytery  can  be  at  the  same  time  under  the 
j'urisdiction  of  two  different  Synods,  but  it  is  worth 
nothing:  for  one  of  the  Synods  was  so  situated  that 
it  could  not  exert  its  authority,  while  the  other  did 
exert  it,  in  all  its  strength. 

Mr.  Macklin.    Dr.  Junkin  said 

Dr.  Junkin.  I  want  what  I  did  say  should  appear 
on  record.  I  am  persuaded  there  is  not  a  man  in  that 
Presbytery  who  will  deny  the  statement  to  be  true. 
I  have  drawn  it  up  in  writing,  and  now  ask  leave  to 
submit  it  to  Synod. 

Dr.  Junkin  read  the  followinii  paper,  which  he  requested 
might  go  on  the  miiiUtes,  viz  : 

"I  wished  to  appeal  directly  to  the  General  Assembly,  and 
made  a  proposition  to  the  Presbytery  and  to  Mr.  Barnes  to 
that  amouni.  He  objected,  and  the  Presbytery  acquiesced  in 
the  objection.  The  question  then  was,  whether  the  Appeal 
should  be  to  the  Synod  of  Delaware  or  to  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia. This  question  depended  upon  the  priority  as  to  the 
meetingsof  the  two  Synods;  and  I  asked  whether  the  Synod 
of  Delaware  would  be  in  existence  and  would  have  session 
before  its  expiration.  I  was  answered  in  the  negative,  and 
accordingly  with  the  consent,  and  as  I  believe,  according  to 
the  wishes  of  the  Presbytery,  I  appealed  to  this  Synod. 

Geo.  Junkin." 

Mr.  Barnes.  Is  the  Synod  willing  to  hear  me  for 
a  lew  moments  ? 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  He  is  here  as  a  party,  and 
has  a  right  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  Barnes.  When  the  subject  first  came  up,  it 
was  proposed  by  Dr.  Junkin  that  the  appeal  should  be 
taken  to  the  then  next  Assembly,  viz.  that  which 
met  at  Pittsburgh.  I  objected  to  this,  on  eevera 
grounds  ;  the  chief  was,  that  I  had  not  then  time  to 


MR.  BARNES.  29 

prepare  myseir:  and  the  Presbytery  deferred  the 
matter  till  their  meeting  in  June.  1  always  stated 
my  belief  that  the  appeal  ought  to  go  through  the 
Synod,  and  that  none  ought  to  wish  it  to  take  a  differ- 
ent course.  But  if  any  such  remarks  were  made  re- 
specting the  Synod  ot  Delaware  and  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia  as  have  been  alluded  to,  it  must  have 
been  at  some  time  when  I  was  not  present.  I  am 
very  confident  that  the  opinion  was  never  expressed 
that  the  appeal  should  be  made  to  the  Synod  of  Dela- 
ware. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Does  Mr.  Barnes  recollect  any  ob- 
jection being  made  by  the  Presbytery  to  an  appeal  of 
this  Synod  7 

Mr.  Barnes.  Dr.  Junkin  and  I  agree  in  our  recol- 
lection on  that  subject.  We  had  a  conversation 
about  an  appeal  to  Synod,  but  nothing,  so  far  as  I  re- 
member, was  decided  as  to  whether  it  was  to  be  made 
to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  or  the  Synod  ol  Dela- 
ware. In  reply  to  the  enquiry  of  Mr.  M'Calla,  I 
would  say  that  I  do  not  remember  that  the  subject 
was  spoken  of  in  Presbytery  at  all. 

Mr.  Patterson.  If  1  am  allowed  to  speak  I  can 
give  the  information  desired. 

Moderator.    I  hope  he  will  be  allowed  to  explain, 

Mr.  Kennedy,  of  Lewes.  Had  he  any  right  to 
make  a  reference  to  this  Synod  ? 

Moderator.    It  is  not  a  reference  but  an  appeal. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Did  the  Presbytery  object  to  an  ap- 
peal being  made  to  this  Synod?  That  is  the  question 
I  put:  and  I  presume  there  is  not  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  who  will  say  that  any  objection  was  made 
to  it.  Mr.  Barnes  has  stated  that  Dr.  Junkin,  in  con- 
versation with  him,  expressed  his  determination  to 
appeal  "  to  Synod."  Can  any  man  doubt  to  which 
Synod  he  relerred  ^  As  to  the  Synod  of  Delaware, 
it  was  never  expected  to  meet  again,  and  it  must 
therefore  have  been  to  this  Synod  that  he  intended, 
and  was  understood  as  intending,  to  make  his  appeal. 
Mr.  Barnes,  it  appears,  was  of  opinion  that  the  appeal 
ought  to  pass  through  Synod  :  but  Dr.  Junkm  did  not 
know,  and  could  ncTt,  when  the  Synod  of  Delaware 
was  to  meet:  and  could  he  appeal  to  that  body  ? 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge,  interposing.  If  he  had  ap- 
pealed to  that  Synod  they  could  not  have  tried  the 
appeal:  because  the  Synod  consisted  oi'  but  three 
Presbyteries,  and  one  of  them  was  to  be  appealed 
from:  so  that  there  could  not  be  three  Presbyteries 
left  to  act  upon  the  case,  which  the  constitution  re- 
quires there  should  be. 

Mr.  M'Calla  resumed.  The  Presbytery  knew 
this,  and  yet  did  not  object  to  his  appeal.  But  now 
they  object.  It  is  plain  to  me  that  this  is  a  constitu- 
tional proceeding  :  all  the  fault,  if  there  is  any  irregu- 

o 


30  TRIAL   OF 

larity,  rests  on  the  intermediate  court.  A  brother 
[Mr.  R.  Breckinridge]  has  told  us  that  there  never 
occurred  such  a  case  since  the  creation  before.  Now 
I  am  Sorry  to  ditl'er  I'roni  a  brother  usually  so  accurate 
in  Ins  positions:  but  there  certainly  has  been  more 
than  one  case  very  like  ir,  not  only  since  the  creation, 
but  since  the  flood  :  it  was  under  the  famous  constitu- 
tion of  Nimrod,  in  which  mis^ht  made  ris;ht. 

Mr.  Campbell.  I  hope  our  Synod  [ihe  Synod  ot 
Delaware]  will  not  be  blamed  in  this  matter.  If  thi 
brother  over  the  way  [Mr.  R.  Breckinridge]  is  cor- 
rect, no  synod  can  receive  an  appeal,  which  does  not 
consist  of  more  than  three  Presbyteries,  if  we  had 
no  more,  it  is  certainly  not  our  fault.  The  question 
before  us  now  is  wlielher  there  is  law  for  our  demand 
of  these  documents.  The  right  of  review  and  con- 
trol is  a  constitutional  right ;  it  arises  under  the  con- 
stitution. If  the  constitution  gives  us  that  right  in 
respect  to  these  records,  then  we  have  the  right  to 
demand  them  :  but  if  there  is  no  law  lor  the  demand, 
there  is  no  crime  in  refusing  to  comply  with  it.  Where 
there  is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression.  Now  what 
is  a  Synod  1    The  book  says — 

-  As  a  I'resbytery  is  a  convention  of  the  bishops  and  elders 
wiihin  a  certain  disirict :  so  a  synod  is  a  conveniion  of  the 
bishops  and  elders  within  a  larger  district,  including  at  least 
three  Presbyteries. 

7\.nd  what  is  its  power?  Over  what  Presbyteries 
has  it  control  ? 

The  Synod  has  power  to  receive  and  issue  all  appeals  regu- 
larly brought  up  from  the  Presbyteries  &c. 

The  Synod,  then,  can  issue  a])peals  fiom  the  Pres 
byteries.  But  from  what  Presbyteries?  From  those 
which  constitute  the  Synod.  Now  the  Presbytery 
appealed  irom  did  then  belong  to  the  Synod  of  Dela- 
ware. And  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  that  Synod 
from  holding  a  pro  re  naia  meeting  at  the  call  of  its 
Moderator.  It  has  never  been  authoritatively  deci- 
ded that  he  cannot  call  such  a  meeting.  But,  sup- 
posing this  to  be  impossible,  and  there  was  no  remedy 
in  what  the  Synod  of  Delaware  could  lawluUydo: 
what  then?  Why  then  there  was  a  "  leak  in  the 
law."  For  this  neither  the  Synod  of  Delaware  nor 
the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery  are  responsible. 
What  then  is  to  be  done?  I  say  that  it  is  best  to 
abide  by  the  law.  What  said  Mr.  Webster  in  a  like 
case '2    Conjrress  laid  a  duty  on  lead  in  bars.    An  ira- 

Eorter,  wishing  to  evade  the  duty,  imported  lead  in 
usts  and  other  forms.  The  collector  demanded  the 
duty:  the  importer  refused  to  pay  it:  and  the  cause 
went  up  to  the  Supreme  Court.  Mr.  Webster's  ar- 
gument was  that  as  there  was  here  a  leak  in  the  law, 
It  was  better  to  adhere  to  the  law  until  it  was  mend- 
edt  than  to  establish  law  by  mere  construction.    I 


MR.   BARNES.  31 

hold  to  the  same  doctrine.  It  is  dangerous  to  make 
laws  by  construction.  You  may  hari-?  a  man  by  con- 
struction. Dillerent  minds,  we  know,  will  put  difl'er- 
ent  constructions  on  the  same  laniy;uaf;e.  In  our  case 
there  is  no  need  ol  resorting  to  ct)nsLruction,  because 
we  have  a  remedy.  The  remedy  is  to  be£:in  de  novo. 
We  cannot  try  this  appeal  witiiouL  tlie  documents  on 
which  to  try  it.  But  you  may  begin  anew.  You  may 
put  Mr.  Biirnes  into  tlie  bounds  ol  a  Presbytery  which 
you  can  form,  and  you  may  order  that  Presbytery  to 
take  up  his  book  and  try  him  upon  it.  The  Assembly 
has  no  control  ovev  this  case.  Hiul  they  ordered  the 
records  ol  our  Synod  to  be  delivered  over  lo  this  Sy- 
nod, then  you  would  have  had  the  right  to  review 
them.  But  now  you  have  no  such  right.  It  is,  as  I 
said,  a  constitutional  right,  and  the  constitution 
does  not  give  it  to  you.  The  assembly  might  have 
dis.solved  the  Synod  of  Delaware  at  once,  on  the  spot: 
and  then  its  Presbyteries  would  have  passed  at  once 
under  the  control  ofihis  Synod;  but  it  did  not  do  this. 
And  it  is  not  the  business  of  the  Synod  ofDelaware  to 
fiupply  wbat  the  Assembly  omitttjd.  Nay,  it  has  no 
right  to  do  it.  For  ray  own  part  I  should  be  glad  if  it 
could  be  done:  we  might  then  issue  this  appeal  now 
as  well  as  at  any  time:  but  as  we  are  Presbyterians, 
and  as  some  ol  our  brethren  are  so  zealous  lor  adhe- 
ring to  the  very  letter  of  our  standards,  why  let  us 
fo  where  the  book  says.  This  is  then  our  doctrine; 
say  amen  to  it.  In  a  word,  the  whole  question  be- 
fore us  is  this.  Have  v^e  law  for  our  demand  of  these 
records?  iJ' there  is  lav/  for  it,  I  am  ready  to  bow  to 
the  law. 

Dr.  JuNKiN,  interposing — Here  is  the  law. 

[Dr.  Jiinkin  here  read  again  from  the  Book,  of  Discipline  the 
first  clause  of  the  paragraph.  Chap.  7.  Sec.  3.  Sub.  Sec.  16. 
See  ii  above.J 

And  now,  if  the  brother  does  not  sit  down  he  will 
have  forfeited  his  character. 

Mr.  Campbell.  Very  trut\  the  Book  so  declares: 
but  the  book  supposes,  at  the  same  time,  that  '"  the 
judicatory  above"  is  a  judicatory  which  has  a  right  to 
demand  the  records  :  il  so,  the  court  below  must  send 
them  up:  that  I  do  not  dispute.  But  we  are  no  nearer 
to  our  conclusion,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  tlie 
eourt  above  has  legitimate  cognizance  of  the  case. 
Suppose  the  Synod  of  Virginia  should  undertake  to 
issue  an  appeal  from  a  decision  ol  the  Second  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelpliia ;  would  the  Presbytery  be 
hound  to  send  up  copies  of  its  records  to  the  Synod  of 
Virginia?  Will  the  Dr.  take  that  ground?  Will  he 
apply  the  rule  he  read  so  triumphantly  to  such  a  case? 
Suppose  a  man  aggrieved  by  the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia had  appealed  to  the  Synod  of  Ohio ;  would  he 
get  up  and  read  his  rule,  and  insist  the  records  should 
be  sent  to  Cincinnati  ?    I  ask  him  the  question. 


32  TRIAL   O? 

Dr.  JiiNKiN.    Read  the  whole. 

Mr.  Campbell.     Well,  I  will  read  the  whole. 

[Mr.  Campbell  then  read  the  remainder  of  the  paragrapk 
quoted  above  by  Dr.  Junkin,  declaring  that  the  presbytery 
shall  be  censured  for  neglect  of  duty,  &c.  See  it  aboTe.l 

Well  fir:  and  so  if  the  Pyesb)  tery  of  Philadelphia 
refuses  to  send  up  its  records  to  the  Sy7H)d  of  Virgi- 
nia, il  ia  to  be  censured,  is  it?  Let  him  first  show 
that  the  Synod  of  Virginia  has  cognizance  ol' the  case, 
or  let  him  keep  his  seat. 

Mr.  PiCKANDS.  It  has  been  asked  whether  the  Se- 
cond Presbytery  assented  that  Dr.  Junkin's  app»al 
should  be  issued  before  this  Synod.  A  previous  ques- 
tion is,  whether  the  Presbytery  had  a  right  to  assent 
to  any  such  thing  ?  They  had  nothing  to  do  with  it : 
nothing  to  say  about  it :  no  assent  or  dissent  to  give 
in  the  matter.  A  man  feels  aggrieved  by  a  sentence 
of  theirs  and  says:  I  will  appeal  from  your  sentence. 
Very  well,  the  Presbytery  are  not  bound  to  say,  we 
consent  that  you  shall.  They  could  not  regularly 
consen'  *x  an  appeal  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  be- 
cause t  :€/  were  under  the  jurisdiction  ot  another  Sy- 
nod, the  Synod  of  Delaware.  But  it  was  said  by  bro- 
ther M'Calla  that  it  was  acknowledged  at  the  time, 
that  the  Synod  of  Delaware  was  dissolved,  or  virtu- 
ally dissolved.  Moderator,  I  knov/  of  no  such  thing. 
Our  Synod  stood  adjourned  to  meet  at  Snow  Hilh 
True,  we  were,  at  and  after  a  certain  day,  to  be  dig- 
eolved:  but  until  then  we  were  in  existence  as  much 
as  ever  we  had  been.  And  it  would  have  been  pass- 
ing strange  if  one  of  our  Presbyteries  should  consent 
to  an  appeal's  being  taken  to  a  foreign  body,  while 
their  own  Synod  was  still  in  existence.  Again,  it  has 
been  said  that  it  takes  three  Presbyteries  to  consti^ 
tute  a  Synod,  and  as  one  of  those  was  a  Presbytery 
appealed  from,  there  would  not  be  a  Synod  left  to  act 
upon  the  appeal.  It  is  very  true  that  it  takes  three 
Presbyteries  to  constitute  a  Synod;  but  it  is  also  true 
that  if  but  seven  menibers  from  the  different  Presby- 
teries are  present  (hey  constitute  a  Synod.  There 
must  have  been  one  from  each  Presbytery  to  consti- 
tute the  Synod,  but,  once  constituted,  it  can  continue 
its  sittings,  whether  it  happens  that  there  are  mem- 
bers present  from  each  one  of  the  Presbyteries  or  not. 

Mr.  R.  Bkeckinridge,  interposing — No;  it  is  said 
that  some  from  each  Presbytery  are  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a  quorum,  and  business  cannot  go  on  Without 
a  quorum. 

Mr.  PicKANDS.  True:  they  must  be  there  at  first 
to  constitute  the  Synod  :  but  when  the  Synod  is  con- 
stituted it  can  proceed  with  its  business,  though  its 
numbers  should  fall  so  low  as  seven  only,  and  they  all 
from  two  Presbyteries,  or  even  from  the  same  P-re%4 
bytery. 


MR.   BARNES.  33 

Mr.  R.  BRECKiNRinoE.  No:  there  must  be  three  of 
ihe  seven  froi-ri  three  difiereiit  prcsbyteriee. 

Mr.  PicKANDP.  Suppose  members  sliould  ffct  leave 
of  absence :  and  it  should  so  happen  ihat  all  me  mem- 
bers of  one  of  the  three  presbyteries  should  leave  the 
judicatory,  would  that  dissolve  the  synod  ?  I  conceive 
not.  1  believe  the  clause  which  has  been  read  refers 
only  to  the  opening  and  constilutinp  of  (he  synod. 

Mr.  J.  Latta.  I  hoi)e  we  shall  have  an  end  of  these 
desultory  remarks.  Have  you  j^iven  up  your  call  for 
the  presbytery  records  ?  1  hope  we  shall  come  up  to 
some  decision,  and  not  waste  our  time  in  this  manner. 

Mr.  Ki>NNEDv.  The  motion,  as  introduced  into  the 
Assembly  by  Dr.  Miller,  was  that  '"  at  and  after"  a 
certain  day  the  Synod  of  Delaware  should  be  dis- 
solved. 

MouERATOR.  Not  SO.  The  brother  is  mistaken. 
Lee  the  clerk  read  the  act  of  Assembly  dissolving  the 
Synod  of  Delaware. 

The  act  of  Assembly  was  according  read  as  fol- 
lows : 

Resolved,  That  at  and  after  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia  in  October  next,  the  Synod  ot  Delaware  shall  be 
dissolvid,  and  the  presbyteries  constituting  the  same  shall  be 
then  and  thereafter  annexed  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  : 
and  that  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  constituted  by  the  union 
aforesaid,  shall  lake  such  order  concerning  the  organization 
of  its  several  presbyteries  as  may  be  deemed  expedient  and 
constitutional :  and  that  said  synod,  if  it  shall  deem  it  de- 
sirable, make  application  to  the  next  General  Assembly  for 
such  a  division  of  the  synod  as  may  best  suit  the  convenience 
of  all  the  presbyteries,  and  promote  the  glory  of  God. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  Very  well :  was  not  the  Synod  of 
Delaware  in  existence  until  ihe  day  of  the  meeting  of 
this  synod  ?  And  if  it  was,  then  the  records  of  all  its 
presbyteries  were  under  its  review  and  control  up  to 
that  day.  This  synod  has  no  more  right  to  the  re- 
cords of  the  2d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  than  to  the 
records  of  the  Presbytery  of  Lewes,  or  of  any  other 
presbyiery  belonging  to  the  Delaware  Synod,  or  to 
any  other  Synod.  The  day  this  synod  sat,  ours,  [the 
Synod  uf  Delaware]  was  iii^\solved  ;  but  not  before: 
consequently  it  was  itiipossible  the  appeal  could 
regularly  be  taken  to  this  syiuui. 

Mr.  Ma'^klin.  II  the  records  do  not  belong  to  this 
synod,  what  other  synod,  1  abk,  is  to  receive  them? 
Either  we  have  the  power,  or  iris  no  where.  Here 
are  the  proceedings  ol  an  entire  ee>  lesiastical  year 
not  to  he  reviewed  by  any  synod  whatever  !  It  was 
taken  for  granted  by  the  Assembly  that  the  records 
of  the  Synod  of  Delaware  and  ol  all  its  presDyteries 
were,  as  of  course,  to  pass  into  the  possession  and 
control  of  this  synod. 

Mr.  Winchester  now  called  for  the  reading  of  Mr. 
Breckinridge's  motion,  ordering  the  records  of  the 

3*- 


34  TRIAL  or 

Aasembly'fi  2d  Presbytery  to  be  laid  od the  table.  And^ 
it  was  read  accordinjrly. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  When  was  the  Synod  of 
Delaware  to  have  met  if  it  had  not  been  dissolved? 

Mr.  Gilbert.  On  the  day  after  this  synod  met : 
viz.  on  the  29th  of  October.     We  met  on  the  28th. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinkidge.  Much  of  this  discussion  is 
certainly  irrelevant.  We  are  not,  now,  claiming  the 
records  either  of  the  Synod  of  Delaware  or  of  the 
Assembly's  Second  Presbytery.  All  we  want,  at 
present,  is  the  evidence  in  the  cause  before  us.  The 
motion  calls  for  tnis,  and  for  this  only.  The  Pres- 
bytery do  not  pretend  that  they  are  not,  now,  under 
the  jurisdiction  and  control  ot"  this  Synod.  They  ap- 
pear here  as  being  under  our  control.  Here  is  a.  case 
in  which  they  are  deeply  interested.  One  of  their 
own  members  has  been  charged  wiih  holding  hereti- 
cal opinions:  they  tried  and  acquitted  him.  The  ap- 
peal has  been  m<ide  to  us  :  and  we  now  ask  them  for 
80  much  of  tlieir  records  as  relates  to  this  cai.t.  The 
time  of  the  union  of  the  two  Synods  will  not  settle 
the  question  whether  we  arc  entitled  to  their  records 
or  not.  When  called  upon  for  the  records,  the  Pres- 
byiery  attempted  to  plead  to  our  jurisdiction,  and  did 
so  with  a  view  to  the  withholding  olr  tl^e  ecorda. 
But  can  they  enter  a  competent  plea  ?  Who  is  to  judge 
of  its  compc'tency  ?  This  Synod,  undcubtedly,  and 
the  Synod  has  judged  of  it,  and  has  overruled  it.  Are 
the  Presbytery  still  to  refuse  and  openly  to  rebel 
against  us^  and  this  while  they  acknowledge  they 
are  under  our  control?  Or  will  they  yield  the  point? 
I  trust  rhcy  will  noi  rebel,  but  that  they  will  yield, 
like  brethren.  The  question  is,  whether  t.he  parties  ta 
this  cause  have  entered  any  plea  to  our  jurisdiction? 
The  parties  have  not :  they  declare  themselves  ready 
for  trial,  and  tlie  way  is  paved  lor  the  Synod  to  pro- 
ceed. But  we  want  ihe  eviilence:  we  want  the  re- 
cord which  contains  it.  Why  will  our  brethren  o( 
that  Presbytery  hold  out  in  refusing  it?  Do  they  nor 
see  that  they  are  doing  injustice  to  one  ot  their  owu 
members?  Mr.  Barnes  has  a  right  to  claim  the  pro- 
duction of  till.'  recorded  proof  in  his  case.  But  if  the 
Presbytery  still  refuse,  and  are  determined  to  rebel, 
the  Synod  can  go  on  mean  while  and  try  the  cause, 
and  then  arraijrn  the  Presbytery  for  contumncy.  And 
now  the  question  recurs,  if  they  shall  hand  in  their 
records,  who  takes  the  responsibility  of  the  wrong 
done?  Not  the  Presbytery  :  it  is  we  ourselves  who 
must  take  it.  We  are  answerable,  if  there  has  been 
any  violation  of  order  committed.  Why  then  will 
they  be  so  ver)  tenacious?  They  cannot  be  standing 
upon  their  rights:  for  the  Syriod  has  decided  against 
their  right;  and  for  this  decision  we  take  the  respon- 
sibility.   The  Assembly,  it  is  very  true,  did  not  ex- 


MR.   BARNES.  35 

gressly  nayr,  the  books  of  the  Delaware  Synod  or  of  its 
reBbyteries  should  be  iransferred  to  ub  for  our  re- 
view and  control ;  and  we  do  not  ask  for  all  these  re- 
cords. The  union,  however,  of  two  such  bodies,  does 
certainly  imply  that  there  shall  be  a  union  of  proper- 
ly in  their  records  of  every  sort.  An  amalgamation 
of  two  public  bodies  into  one,  involves  ain  anialgama- 
tion  of  these  documents  and  of  all  their  public  proper- 
ty of  every  kind.  There  is  a  vitality  in  the  union  thua 
created.  It  is  perfect  and  entire.  Why,  then,  are  we 
to  take  them  into  our  bosom  as  a  part  of  ourselves, 
and  yet  be  debarred  the  right  of  examining  into  their 
proceedings,  which  proceeding'?do,  in  fact,  constitute 
the  vitality  of  the  judicatory.  It  lives  only  in  its  acta. 
This  doctrine  holds  in  all  civil  unions,  of  states,  or  of 
the  counties  of  a  state,  and  there  is  a  reason  for  it.  If 
the  records  of  individual  right  exist  in  one  county- 
court,  and  that  county  is  blended  with  another,  will 
the  court  refuse  to  deliver  up  the  records  of  these 
rights,  that  they  may  be  continued  and  preserved  in 
the  united  civil  body  ?  Such  a  thing,  I  will  venture  to 
Bay,  was  never  heard  of  in  the  world  till  it  was 
broached  here. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  I  have  in  my  possession  a  certified 
copy  ol"  the  sentence  of  the  presbytery,  from  which  I 
appeal.  And  I  now  hold  in  my  hand  the  original  tes- 
timony exhibited  by  me  before  the  presbytery,  though 
it  is  not  indeed  regularly  certified  by  the  moderator 
or  clerk.  I  can,  however,  prove  its  authenticity  and 
identity,  orally,  by  a  living  witness,  under  oath  if  ne- 
cessary. And  I  would  say  to  my  friends  here,  why 
will  you  embarrass  the  case  by  a  long  discussion, 
when  you  have  a  majority  of  99  who  are  ready  for 
the  question  ? 

Moderator.  The  question  is  on  adopting  the  or- 
der that  the  Assembly's  2d  Presbytery  lay  so  much 
of  their  records  on  the  table  of  this  synod  as  relates 
to  the  cause  before  it. 

The  question  was  therefore  put,  and  carried  by  a 
large  majority. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  move  you  that  the  stated 
clerk  of  this  synod  do  Ibrthwilh  put  into  the  hands  of 
the  stated  clerk  of  the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery 
a  copy  of  this  order. 

Mr.  Wynkoop.  Will  it  not  be  better  to  say,  into  the 
hands  of  the  Moderator  as  well  as  the  clerk  of  the 
presbytery  ? 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  Agreed.  Let  that  modifica- 
tion be  made. 

Mr.  DuFFiELD.  Does  this  order  overrule  the  plea 
oor  presbytery  put  in  to  the  jurisdiction  of  synod? 

Moderator.  We  are  not  through  with  this  yet. 

Dr.  Cathcart.  Synod  has  power  to  censure  a 
presbytery  :  but  not  to  compel  them. 


36  TRIAL   OF 

Mr.  Dickey.  I  move  that  the  mcmbcra  ef  the  As- 
se.mbly'ts  Second  Presbytery  have  leave  now  to  retire. 
Tliey  may  wish  to  consult  tojijether  upon  this  order. 
Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  Tiicy  are  neither  parties  to 
the  caiisf,  nor  niemhers  of  the  synod  while  trying:  it. 
Mr.  Gilbert.  I  wish  that  question  decided.  I  wish 
the  nriolerator  to  decide  whether  the  presbytery  is  or 
is  not  a  party  ? 

Moderator.  They  arc  a  party,  and  will  be  heard 
in  due  time:  but  they  are  not  one  of'the  original  par- 
tiep. 

Mr.  Gilbert.    Have  they  not  a  right  to  epeak  to 
questions  of  order  as  well  as  other  members  have? 
Moderator.  That  is  a  question  which  I  hope  the 
House  will  decide. 

Mr.  R.  Brecki.nridge.  I  move  you  an  order  in  thia 
form. 

Resolved,  As  the  sense  of  the  Synod,  that  no  member  of  the 
A8seml)ly's  2d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  (except  Mr.  Barnei 
and  he  by  virtue  of  beinj;  an  original  parly)  be  considered  at 
liberty  to  lalcc  any  part  in  the  progress  of  this  cause,  except 
to  speak  in  explanation  of  their  judcmenl,  or  their  dissent,  at 
the  time  indicated  :  Book  of  Discipline,  Chap.  VII.  Sec.  III. 
Sub.  Sec.  Vlll.  or  togiveinformaiion  at  the  request  of  synod, 
as  indicated  in  Sub.  Sec.  IX  of  said  Sec. 

Mr.  Bar.nes.  lam  opposed  lo  the  passing:  of  such 
an  ordrr.  I  do  not  know  why  I  am  to  be  selected, 
while  my  brethren  of  the  Presbyter)  are  to  be  shut 
out.  I  should  likti  to  know  on  what  j^round  such  a 
distinction  is  to  be  made  The  appeal  is  not  from  ray 
course,  be  it  ris-hl  or  be  it  wron°: :  the  appeal  is  from 
the  course  pnr.'ued  by  the  Presbytery.  It  therefor« 
brinors  the  Presbytery  before  yeu:  and  the  action  of 
the  Synod  mu.^l  be  in  relation  to  the  Presbytery. 
Your  first  business  is  not  to  arraien  me,  or  to  try 
me;  but  to  arraign  and  to  try  the  Presbytery  for  ac- 
quitting me.  You  are  to  judge  the  Presbytery,  and 
for  th  It  purpose  to  know  on  what  grounds  they  pro- 
ceeded. 

Mr.  MoR33.  Does  not  the  book  allow  the  Preeby- 
lery  to  be  a  party  as  muc  h  a^  Mr.  Barnes  ? 

Mr.  Barr.  Neither  of  tlie  original  parties,  or  the 
Presbytery,  have  a  right  to  .«ay  one  word  as  to  the 
order  of  proceeding.  You  micht  as  well  allow  Dr. 
Junkin,  (who  is  not  within  the  bounds  of  our  Synod,) 
10  discuss  q  lesi  ions  of  order  here,  as  the  Presby  ttry, 
or  Mr.  Barn  s  cither. 

Mr.  McCalla.  I  think  Mr.  Barnes  has  just  as 
much  right  to  ;■  peak  as  Dr.  .Tunkin. 

Mr.  Barr.  Certainly.  But  he  is  not  a  part  of  the 
court  Id  dictnfe  to  yuu  how  you  shall  proceed  in  con- 
ducting the  trial. 

fvir.  GiLBERr.  You  have  demanded  the  records  of 
the  Prusbytery,  and  are  going  to  condemn  it,  if  it  re- 


MR.  BARNE«.  37 

fuses  to  give  them  up.  Have  not  the  members  of 
Presbytery  a  right  to  be  iieard,  before  you  condemn 
them  ?  Surely  they  have  as  much  right  to  be  heard 
as  Mr.  Barnes  has. 

Mr.  Reece.  How  do  courts  of  law  conduct  their 
business?  Mr.  Barnes  has  a  risfht  to  be  heard  by 
himself,  or  by  counsel,  but  the  Presbytery  has  not. 
This  body  bein^  a  court  for  the  time  being,  should 
conduct  its  busmess  on  the  same  principles  as  a  civil 
court  does.  1  believe  the  Presbytery  has  no  right  to 
vote.  The  Synod  is  to  say  vvhelher  the  Presbytery 
has  done  right  or  wrong.  It  strikes  me  that  the 
whole  proceeding  is  wrong ;  it  began  wrong,  and  it  is 
Ukely  lo  end  wrong.  1  ihink  we  had  belter  get  rid  of 
it  as  soon  as  we  can.  The  Assembly  inserted  the 
words  "at  and  after"  in  its  order,  and  iho.^e  words 
support  the  Presbytery  in  the  ground  they  have  ta- 
ken. I  say  again,  you  have  begun  wrong,  and  you 
will  end  wrong. 

Mr.  Eustace.  Has  the  Moderator  decided,  and 
the  Clerk  recorded,  who  are  the  panics  ?  or  do  1  un- 
derstand it  as  decided  that  there  are  three  parties? 

Moderator.  There  are  two  original  parties:  Dr. 
Junkin  and  Mr.  Barnes:  and  the  Presbytery  is  a  par- 
ty so  far  as  that  it  may  be  called  upon  to  explain  or 
justify  its  own  procfteding. 

Mr.  Eustace.  My  question  is  still  unanswered. 
Who  are  the  parties  before  this  Synod?  Are  they 
Mr.  Barnes  and  Dr.  Junkin,  or  Dr.  Junkin  and  the 
Presbytery  ? 

Moderator.    I  have  answered  the  questions  plain- 

h- 

Mr.  Grant.  I  hold  in  my  hands  a  certified  copy  of 
the  order  of  Synod,  addressed  to  the  Moderator  of 
the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery,  to  deliver  up  its 
books.  That  Presbytery  stands  adjourned  to  meet 
at  the  call  of  the  Moderator.  I  therefore  request  the 
iPresbytery  to  meet  at  the  house  of  Dr.  Cathcart,  as 
soon  as  Mr.  Eustace's  question  shall  have  been  an^ 
swered,  and  the  Presbytery  can  get  a  certified  copy 
of  the  answer. 

Mr.  Eustace.  I  have  received  a  similar  commu- 
nication, addressed  to  the  Stated  Clerk  of  that  Pres- 
bytery. 

Dr.  CuYLER.  I  hope  brethren  will  not  continue  to 
act  ,in  this  poor  pettifogging  way.  It  is  unworthy  of  a 
court  of  the  Lord's  house. 

The  question  being  now  put  on  the  order  as  above 
moved  by  Mr.  R.  Breckinridge,  it  was  carried. 

Mr.  Grant  requested  a  certified  copy,  that  he  might 
lay  it  before  the  Presbytery.     The  copy  was  ordered. 

Dr.  Green.  I  now  move  that  we  proceed  to  issue 
the  appeal  on  the  best  evidence  we  have.  Dr.  Jun- 
kin has  stated  that  he  is  iq  possessionof  a  cercifi- 


38  TRIAL    OF 

ed  copy  of  the  sentence,  and  a  correct  copy  of 
the  eviilence  laid  before  the  court  below. 

Dr.  ('UYLER.  1  am  unwillinjj  to  proceed,  until  the 
Presbytery  shall  have  had  a  reasonable  time  to  con- 
sider on  the  propriety  ofcomplyins  with  the  order  of 
Synod.  Perhajja  it  will  be  better  that  the  court,  as 
Buch,  have  a  recess.  The  Synod  can  still  continue 
to  sit  and  transact  other  business. 

Mr.  Barr.  I  doubt  if  that  is  constitutional.  We 
must  first  postpone  the  trial,  after  we  have  once  en- 
tered upon  it. 

The  Moderator  proclaimed  a  recess  of  the  court 
for  15  minutes,  and  gave  leave  lor  the  members  of 
the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery  to  withdraw ; 
and  thev  thereupon  withdrew. 

The  Synod  then  proceeded  to  receive  reports  from 
the  Presbyteries  on  the  state  of  religion.  Very  few 
were  handed  in. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  There  is  not  enougfh,  in 
these  meagre  statements,  to  furnish  the  materials 
for  a  report.  This  is  a  matter  vvhicLi  should  not  be 
passed  over  in  this  way.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  most  im- 
portant of  all  the  business  vvc  transact.  It  contains 
the  essence,  the  very  super-extraci,  of  all  our  doin;^s. 
I  think  it  would  be  desirable  that  we  should  appoint 
an  evening  especially  to  attend  to  this  matter.  It 
would  be  a  profitable  way  ol  spending  a  portion  of 
our  time. 

Before  any  motion  on  the  subject  was  made,  Synod 
took  a  recess  at  half  past  2  o'clock. 

After  a  recess,  Synod  met  and  resumed  its  judicial 
capacity. 

Mr.  Grant,  moderator  of  the  Asfjembly's  2d  Presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia,  reported  that  the  Presbytery 
had  met  at  his  call,  and  had,  after  having  considered 
the  resolution  of  Synod,  requested  him  to  state  the 
result.  And  in  doing  so,  said  Mr.  G.,  suffer  me  to 
Kay  that  whatever  the  Presbytery  may  have  deemed 
it  our  duty  to  decide,  nothing  is  farther  from  our  in- 
inteniion  than  to  manifest  any  thing  like  disrespect 
to  the  authority  of  the  Synod,  or  the  persons  of  those 
who  compose  it:  and  had  we  been  i)rivileged,  this 
morning,  to  speak  for  ourselves,  we  should  have  made 
this  very  apparent.  We  do  not  deny  tiie  present 
jurisdiction  of  this  Synod  over  us.  All  we  insist  upon 
is  the  constiLutional  right  of  being  free  from  tliat 
jurisdiction  previously  to  the  28th  day  of  October,  up 
to  which  day  we  were  .subject  to  another  body,  and 
nil  our  acts  liable  to  its  review  and  con:rol.  We  have 
ci'ref'uliy,  and  we  trust  prayerfully  also,  considered 
the  matter,  and  I  am  directed  (o  hand  in  this  minute, 
as  expressing  the  issue  of  our  deliberations: 

"  Whereas  the  Synod  fiave  not  considered,  and  acted  on, 
ourp/ea  in  bar,  presented  to  i»hcm  this  uiorning;  nor  suffered 


MR.   BARNES.  39 

\1B  to  be  heard  in  explanation  or  support  of  lhi3  plea ;  bnt  liave 
excluded  us  from  the  house,  and  ordered  us,  forthwith,  to  lay 
our  records  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnea,  before  the  Synod— 
therefore 

Resolved,  That  the  Presbytery  respectfully  refer  the  Synod 
to  that  plea,  and  decline  the  presentation  of  our  records  to 
ihem, — the  Synod  of  I'hiladclphia  being,  in  our  judgment,  not 
authorised  by  the  General  Assembly,  to  take  cognizance  of 
the  doings  of  this  Presbytery,  prior  to  the  28th  of  October, 
instant.  Moreover,  the  Presbytery  respectfully  represent  to 
the  Synod,  that  Dr.  Junltin  had  no  instructions  or  pledge 
from  us,  in  relation  to  the  body  to  which  he  should  appeal." 
A  true  extract  from  the  minutes  of  Presbytery. 
Geo.  DuFFiELD,  Clerk. 

York,  Oct.  30,  1S35. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  move  you  that  this  paper 
be  inserted  on  the  minutes  of  Synod.    Ordered. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  I  have  in  tny  hands  an  oflicial  paper 
from  tiie  Stated  Clerk  of  that  Presbytery,  which, 
with  the  leave  of  Synod,  I  will  read. 

Dr.  McDowell.  Before  we  hear  Dr.  Jiinkin,  I 
would  say  that  I  hope  we  shall  hear  the  Presbytery 
also. 

Dr.  JtiNKiN.  I  hold  two  letters,  one  official,  and  the 
other  I  should  denominate  semi-official,  from  which  it 
will  appear  that  when  this  order  was  entered  on  the 
Presbytery's  minutes,  the  thought  of  resisting  your 
jurisdiction  had  not  yet  arisen  in  their  minds. 

Philadelphia,  Oct.  13,  1835. 
Rev.  Geo.  Junkin,  D.  D. 

Dear  Brother — In  accordance  with  the  annexed  resolution 
of  Presbytery,  I  have  to  request  that  you  will  cause  to  be  de- 
posited in  my  hands  the  written  testimony,  on  your  part,  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes, — the  charges  I  already  have.  As  the 
meeting  of  Synod  approaches,  it  is  desirable  that  you  fiirnish 
It  forthwith,  that  I  may  be  enabled  to  send  to  Synod  all  tha 
documents  in  the  case.  With  the  best  wishes  for  your  hap- 
piness and  usefulness,  &c.  I  remain  yours  in  the  gospel, 

Thomas  Eustace. 

Extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  session  July  10,  1835. 

"Resolved,  That  the  written  charges  and  testimony  of  Dr. 
Junkin,  and  the  written  defence  of  Mr.   Barnes,  be  preserved 
on  the  files  of  this  Presbytery."         Attest, 
Thomas  Eustace, 
Stated  Clerk  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia. 

In  addition,  I  can  prove,  on  oath,  that  the  Modera- 
tor of  the  Presbytery  announced  publicly,  that  it  was 
understood,  that  the  question  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
Synod  was  not  to  be  permitted  to  bar  my  rights  as 
appellant,  in  the  trial  ol  my  appeal. 

On  motion,  it  was  resolved  to  hear  Mr.  Eustace  in 
explanation. 

Mr.  EosTACE.  There  is  a  distinction  to  be  taken 
between  my  acts  as  an  individual  and  as  the  clerk  of 


40  TRIAL  OF 

my  Presbytery.  I  have  been  grieved  to  hear  the 
liberties  wliich  have  been  taken  through  a  disregard 
of  this  distinction.  I  have  been  arraigned  for  acts 
done  by  me  merely  as  the  official  organ  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, as  though  they  had  been  my  private  individu- 
al acts.  I  have  a  strong  reason  for  wishing  that  mat- 
ters were  situated  dillerently  from  what  they  are, 
and  that  this  Synod  did  posse^^s  the  power  of  review- 
ing the  doings  of  our  Presbytery  during  the  past 
year:  but  I  did  not  think  they  had  that  right,  and 
therefore  I  did  not  take  those  measures  which  I 
should  in  other  circumstances.  In  the  paper  just  read 
by  Dr.  Junkin,  wiiere  it  speaks  of  an  appeal  "  to  Sy- 
nod," there  is  not  a  word  to  designate  to  which  of  the 
two  Synods  the  appeal  was  taKen;  and  it  v.'as  my 
duty  to  request  of  him  the  copy  to  which  my  letters 
refer. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  wish  to  ask  of  Mr.  Eu- 
stace, not  as  clerk  o(  Presbytery,  but  as  a  Christian 
man,  whether  in  speaking  of  "  the  Synod,"  he  did  not 
understand  and  mean  the  Synod  ol  Philadelphia? 

Mr.  Eustace.  As  an  officer  of  that  Presbytery  I 
made  all  the  necessary  preparations  for  issuing  the 
appeal. 

Dr.  McDowell.  Was  it  by  direction  of  the  Pres- 
bytery that  he  wrote  this  letter  to  Dr.  Junkin  ? 

Mr.  Eustace  made  some  reply  to  this  inquiry, 
which  the  Reporter  could  not  hear.  (Mr.  E.  eat  at  a 
distance,  and  was  at  no  time  distinctly  heard  at  the 
Reporter's  table  :  whence  it  may  happen  that  his  re- 
plies have  been  imperfectly  given.) 

Dr.  Junkin.  Had  Mr.  Eustace  instructions  from 
the  Presbytery  to  furnish  the  necessary  documents 
to  this  Synod  1 

Mr.  Eustace,  (after  a  pause.)  I  believe  that  I  can 
say  literally  that  I  had  no  such  instructions. 

Mr.  R.  Bheckinridge.  Literally  !  he  can  say  "  lite- 
rally !"  why  !  did  we  ask  him  if  he  could  say  figura- 
tively? 

Dr.  Ely.  The  Presbytery  did  not,  at  the  time  of 
passing  its  sentence  of  acquittal,  know  certainly  that 
Dr.  Junkin  would  appeal ;  and  when  he  sent  his  no- 
tice of  appeal,  the  Presbytery  was  not  in  session  to 
give  such  order. 

Moderator,  What  is  the  date  of  Dr.  Junkin's  ap- 
peal? 

Dr.  Junkin.    July  the  17th,  1835. 

Dr.  Ely.  It  was  sent  to  the  Moderator,  but  the 
Presbytery  was  not  in  session,  and  it  could  not  fore- 
know to  which  body  the  appeal  would  be  made. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  Does  Dr.  Ely  honestly  de- 
clare that  he  did  not  believe  and  know  that  it  was  to 
this  Synod  Dr.  Junkin's  appeal  was  taken? 

Dr.  Ely.    I  had  to  be  sure,  my  own  thoughts  about 


MR.    BARNES,  41 

it:  but  if  he  had  ni)pedle(l  to  llic  man  in  the  moon, 
we  hdd  notJuii<^  to  do  vvilli  it,  iiixl  coul.i  not  hiive 
known  before  hand  that  he  would  liuve  looked  so 
hi^h. 

[tlere  there  was  much  sensation  in  the  Synod,  and 
for  a  tiriie  there  was  so  inu  -.li  co.iverssaiioii  and  .such 
a  coiifiis'ioti  of  POLHid-!,  tiiat  nothing  cmild  he.  Iicard 
with  sulR.-ient  accur.icy  to  l)o,  truly  reiiorted.J 

MooKR.vTou.  loan  ii's:ily  th-u  tiie  aiipiMl  vv:is  put 
into  the  iiands  of  'lie  Mo  ler  uor  of  ilie  Fre^^byiery 
wiiiiiu  ten  d  lys  afier  irs  iiieciin^  in  July.  There  -nust 
have  been  an  iiiterveiiiii!^  ineetiiig  of  Lhe  Pre.sbylery. 

Mr.  Winchester.  VVlii'  i.<  the  date  of  ihe  extract 
from  the  minutes  read  by  Dr.  Junkin? 

Mr.  Dun-iELD.  The  true  hi^siory  of  the  matter  is 
this:  Tlie  Presoytery  adjnirMed  before  any  linai  sen- 
tence was  g:iven  in  the  c.ise  :  1  do  n  )t  know  exactly 
how  lon^  hefore:  but  Dr.  Junkin  wa.s  fissured  that  no 
advantaire  should  be  takf^n  of  hi-  absence,  should  he 
not  be  present  when  the  sentence  was  ijjiven,  but  that 
information  .sh  )uld  be  sent  to  hi  u  as  so.)n  as  |jossit)le, 
by  transmitting  aceriified  copy  of  the  act  oi  Presbyt- 
ery to  his  asrent.  The  Presbytery  then  niet,  and 
agreed  upon  its  sentence,  a  cu|)y  of  wiiich  was  ac- 
cording to  promise,  forthwith  delivered  to  Dr.  Jun- 
kin's  agent.  For  myself,  the  lir.st  lime  I  saw  ihe  sen- 
tence.vvas  when  1  read  it  in  the  Presbyterian  :  and 
the  document  now  in  the  hands  ol  the  byno.l  was 
taken  trom  the  copy  lurnished  to  ihe  edi;or  of  that 
newspaper.  Mr.  Board  man,  the  ch^rk,  had  the  pa- 
pers fiom  whicii  to  ma'ice  a  minute,  but  he  was  sick, 
and  his  finiily  in  affliction,  and  ihc  whole  lay  in  a 
state  of  some  coniusion.  The  stated  clerk  finding 
this  to  be  the  slate  of  tilings —  *     *    * 

Mr.  li.  Breckinr[dge  here  interposed  with  great 
warmth.  1  will  not  stand  by  and  hear  an  al)sent  man 
censured  in  this  manner,  while  lie  has  no  opporiunicy 
to  defend  himself.  1  am  well  acciutinied  with  that 
very  estimable  young  brother,  and  I  know  his  scru- 

fuious  attention  to  his  ollicial  duties  ol' every  kind — 
will  not  hear  his  character  attacked  in  this  style. 
Mr.  DuFFiELu.  I  have  not  censured  brother  i3oard- 
man  in  the  slightest  degree ;  I  stated  that  he  had 
been  sick:  and  his  family  in  a  stale  of  nffliciion.  Was 
thi.s  iiny  censure  ?  All  1  meant  to  s;iy,  and  I  say  so 
Gtill,  with  entire  regard  lor  brother  Boardman,  was, 
thati!  there  is  any  disorder  in  these  records  (itnd  I  do 
not  know  that  there  is  any,)  brother  Bo,irdman  and 
not  the  St  lied  clerk,  Mr.  Eui-tace,  is  answerable  for 
it.  I  heard  the  latter  say  that  there  was  a  gap  in 
the  minutes,  and  that  he  had  written  to  Dr.  Jun- 
kin rf  questing  him  to  furnish  a  copy  of  some  of  the 
papers.  1  know  that  brother  Boardman  was  ill — I 
eyinpathize  in  his  atfliction  as  much  as  any  one— and 
4 


42  TRIAL   OF 

it  was  in  consequence  of  t'lis  that  he  was  unable,  as 
I  understooil,  to  coinpleie  ilie  ini.iutes. 

Moderator.  IT  1  hail  ihouj^hi  Liiat  what  Mr.  Duf- 
field  said  iiiiplicaied  ihe  lU  ir.iiicr  of  broilier  Uoard- 
man,  I  slioiild  Imve  stopped  him, 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  It  ilo«'e  implicate  it.  They 
first  hide  tluiir  I  ccurd< :  (hen  ihey  ilirow  the  hiarne 
on  the  t;iatc  of  llic  record.-:  and  nexi  liiey  throw  it 
on  an  abseni  sick  man:  and  then  ihey  say  iliui  ihey 
char<re  no  man. 

Dr.  Ely  liere  asked  permission  to  explain  ;  hut  it 
was  loudly  ohjei;le<l  to. 

Mr.  Gilbert.  If  it  is  in  order  to  make  a  man  im- 
plicate himsL-ll',  it  must  be  in  order  lo  heur  u  man  in 
explanation  and  dcli'nce. 

Mr.  DuFKiELD  said  somothinij  on  the  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Gilbert  a.skeil  for  the  n  adin.'  of  ihe  order  (in 
relation  to  vvho  sh-ill  be  permitted  to  speak,  &,c.;) 
and  it  was  read  accordinfrly. 

Mr.  McCalla  The  oriicr  declares  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  2  I  Presbytery  are  not  lo  speak,  save  to 
pive  information  in  relaii)n  to  the  ju'liinen!  pa>:sed. 
The  SynoJ  have  asked  I'or  no  such  i  iformation,  save 
once  in  the  ca-^e  of  Mr.  Eusiace;  and  I  am  opposed 
to  the  liiierty'.s  bein;^  irraiUed.  VVe  asked  lor  tliose 
documents  wiiich  were  necessary  in  oriler  lo  cniii^ht- 
en  our  ju  l.;ment,  in  the  casi^  subniiltod,  Uy  appeal,  to 
our  decision:  tiiese  they  r.  fused:  anJ  now  iliey  han» 
on  our  (links,  and  spend  the  time  of  the  Synod  in 
tellinir  us  l'in<?  stories  vvith'>ut  any  niL'afiin'j:  and 
whenpressed  to  liic  real  ()oints  in  dispute,  ihey  tro 
round  and  round  ihem,  luii  lake  care  mver  lo  touch 
one  of  them.  1  am  against  liie  continuation  of  such 
treatment.  I  hope  the  leave  u^ked  will  not  be  {jrant- 
ed. 

The  Moderator  said  that  it  was  his  opinion,  that 
to  ^ive  Mr.  Eustace  pe;  mission  to  speak  would  not 
be  m  order. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge  now  moved  the  following 
preamble  and  resolui ions: 

Whcrens  the  3d  scciion  and  16th  siib-sention  of  the  7th 
chapter  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  confers  on  the  Synod  the 
power  to  censure,  according  lu  circumstances,  any  judicato- 
ry that  shall  nei:l'  ct  to  send  u.  auiheiuic  records  of  ;iny  trial 
in  which  an  appeal  is  lakiin  :  And  whereas  tile  (Asscnitiiy's) 
Second  Preshyitry  of  Philadelphia  has  not  onlv  neglected, 
but  refused,  by  a  niiiiuie  thisdiiy  laid  on  the  table  oi  Synod, 
to  produce  the  record  in  the  case  of  ftlr.  Barnes  and  Dr.  Jun- 
kin,  wliii  h  is  nn  appt-al  tegularly  taken,  and  prosecuted,  al- 
though it  i.-?  r.dcnitied  by  the  Stated  Cleik  of  snid  Presbytery 
that  the  said  recoids  are  present,  a"d  in  posstssiun  of  said 
Presbytery:  And  wlicrpas,  that  refusal  is  aecravaud  in  i. sin- 
justice,  by  the  fact  that  ilie  nienibersof  that  Presl)vierv  itself 
prevented  llie  appellant  from  ap|)ealint!  dirtcily  to  the  General 
Asaembiy,  as   was  his  declared  desire,  and  this  ai  a  pLiiod 


MR.    BARNES.  43 

when  there  was,  nnd  could  be,  no  Synod  to  wliich  he  could 
nppp.-il  hut  ih:9  Synod;  hcuiiise  ih  ;  Assembly  had  ordered 
tlie  dissolutiDii  ol'  the  Synad  of  Djlawnre  b-f ire  the  next 
stated  meeiinsr  Id  wljicli  ihu  -Synod  siooJ  adj  )iirned  ;  and 
tliereis  no  provision  Uuowii  to  us  for  any  pro  re  iiala  meeting 
of  any  :>yi)od  : 

And  u  hi-reas,  this  Synod  has  passed  a  special  order  direct- 
ing saiJ  Prcsiiyicry  to  prodiicu  the  record  necessary  in  the 
case  on  truil  — vvhieii  orili  r  the  I'i(.\-I)yiery  explicitly  refuses 
to  obey  :  iXow,  thcref  ire,  he  it  Ilrsulvcd,  ihat.  in  thejudirment 
oflliis  .■iynoi',  ih.;  cmduci  of  the  (Assembly'?)  S.coiid  Pres- 
byiery  "I  Piii.adelphia.  in  all  ihe  premise;',  is  obHinale,  vexa- 
tious, ut.Jitil,  KHcandid,  contumacious,  and  j^rossly  disor- 
derly. 

Aid  whereas,  liie  (Assembly's)  Secf>nd  Presbytery  of  Phi- 
iadelpiiiii  has  suppressed  the  records  in  ihe  case  in  whicli 
Dr.  J.iukin  has  apficaled  to  .his  Synod  from  the  decision  of 
thai  Pri-sbyttry  in  the  ca-eof  Mr.  Barnes:  And  whereas  this 
Synod  has  used,  without  success,  such  means  as  seemed  pro- 
per, to  obiaiii  possession  of  said  records  as  proof  in  the  case: 

And  wjit-reas,  ii  lo  known  to  Synod,  that  tiue  copies  of  all 
the  proceeding's  and  prool  in  ihe  case  are,  from  other  fouices, 
accessible  lo  it:  And  whereas  ihe  orii,'iiial  paitits  have  beea 
asked,  and  declared  their  readinesi  for  trial ;  and  it  d  )es  not 
app  ar  to  Synod  that  the  cause  ol  the  appellee  would  be  pre- 
judiced by  the  conduct  of  said  Presbytery,  in  suppressing  the 
reconls,  .is  stated  above,  contrary  to  the  oider  of  Synod  and 
the  wis!i  of  ihe  appellant;  .And  whereas,  lUe  cause  of  truth, 
and  the  j.'lory  of  Gjd,  do,  in  the  judgment  of  iliis  Synod, 
reqaire  u  to  make  still  fjrilier  t  ff  irts  to  issue  his  case  :  There- 
fore Resolved,  that  Synod  wili  proceed  to  hear  and  dispose  of 
tlie  appeal  .low  pendme. 

Mr.  Blythe  called  for  a  divi.sion  of  the  question  on 
these  ffff-olutioiip,  luuI  wished  the  paper  read  and 
consider,  il  l»y  paragraphs. 

Dr.  AlcUowtiLi.  I  perceive  in  that  paper  one  prin- 
ciple vvluoli,  waile  il  does  not  strengthen  the  docu- 
ment at  all,  may,  I  think,  li'.ad  us  into  diiliculties.  1 
mean  thai,  which  relates  lo  the  doctrine  that  u  Sy- 
nod coiisi.«litig  ol  three  Presbyteries  cannot  try  an 
appeal  t<ikeii  iVoin  an  act  ol"  one  ot"  them.  I  could 
wish  that  th.it  part  wassiricken  out. 

The  piper  was  now  a^'iin  read,  by  paragraphs, 
for  consi  leration.  The  first  clause  having  been  read 
as  follows : 

'•  Whereas  the  31  section  and  16th  sub-section  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline  confers  on  this  Synod  the  power  to  censure,  ac- 
cording to  circumstances,  any  jud.ca'ory  that  shall  neglect 
to  send  up  authentic  records  of  any  trial  in  which  .:.n  appeal  is 
taken  :" 
and  Ihe  question  bein^  on  its  adoption, 

Mr.  GiLBiiRTsaid,  he  shoLild  not  argue  the  question; 
but  it  w.id  certain  I  hat  the  clause  here  referrda  ^u 
did  not  settle  this;  case  at  all,  unless  it  be  assumed 
that  this  Synod  has  jurisdiction  in  the  case:  to  as- 
LUiae  which  is  begging  the  question  to  be  proved.    If 


44  TRIAL   OF 

the  apppllant  hap  nppcnU'd  in  a  body  not  hnving  juris- 
diction  III  'lie  cuse,,  llie  l're>b.v  Iitv  ,  ccriaiidy,  is  not 
bound  to  siTul  up  lis  rccorils.  II  a  ii  ini-itr  appeals  to 
the  l'i)|)e,  iimsi  liie  l*ie.sltyiiry  fvrn\  its  docnmenls  to 
Rome  !  or  lu!  censurt'd.  il  it  relnses? 

MoDKKATuH.  It  lias  liecii  decided  thill  this  Synod 
has  j^ll•i;^dlcllon  in  ihe  case:  ihut  point  cannot  be 
ajrain  drawn  into  mieslioii. 

'J  lie  clause  ua.-  iheii  ai^reed  lo. 

The  tecond  claiibo  was  ih'/ii  read,  as  follows: 

"And  wliertus  the  (Assembly'?)  si^noii  !  Pres!)ytery  of  Phi- 
ladflplna  II  s  1101  on  y  iicgUcieJ,  but  reruseti,  by  a  iiiiniite 
this  diiy  luid  on  ilie  iiil)lc  »il'  Synod,  lu  prodnce  die  record  in 
tlie  car^c  ol  Air.  li.irnes  and  Dr.  Junkin,  wiiit-h  is  an  appe.il 
regularly  taken  and  prosecutt-d  ;  aldi'Hiyli  it  is  not  alleged 
that  iIk  said  recoid  is  i.ot  prtstiu  and  in  possession  of  said 
Presbytery  " 

This  clause  vvns  also  ajjrecd  to. 

The  lliird  clause  was  then  r  ad  r 

"And  whereas  tliat  reliisa!  is  aii^'ravaled  in  its  in.iustice  by 
the  lacl  liiat  the  Presbytery  itseli  prtveiiifil  ilic  appellant 
from  appeuliiiy  directly  lo  lilt  G^iierr.1  .Assembly,  as  was  his 
declare*!  desire;  and  tins  ut  a  period  when  there  was,  and 
could  be,  no  Synod  to  vvhi.  Ii  he  could  iippeal  hui  ihis  Synod." 

Mr.  L'lAK.NK-s.  I  am  very  conlideni  the  Presbytery 
never  dill  what  is  liiere  ulh-L'tul.  Dr.  Jiiidun  and  I 
had  acdiivcrsatioii  on  the  eubjecl.  belbre  ilie  decision 
ol"  th'^  Presliylery,  in  uliich  I  told  him  thai  it  was  not 
cerl.un  thai  lliere  would  he  ihc  necessity  i'or  any  ap- 
peal ;  lull  that  il' there  was,  I  should  proceed  in  a  re- 
gular manner  as  l-;ecaiiie  a  Preshylertan. 

Dr.  JuNKt.\.  In  one  sense  it  Is  true  that  my  notice 
of  appeal  was  iriven  in  before  the  decision  ol" the 
Presbitery  was  declared;  iliat  is,  before  tliecom- 
niitlee  a|)|ioinied  lo  put.  tie  jiidy:ment  of  the  Presby- 
tery inio  a  writieii  form,  had  done  so.  Bui  llie  votes 
of  the  Presbytery  liad  been  taken  and  had  netfalivetl 
the  prosecution.  1  had  a  c.onvers.ition  wiMi  ibe  Mo- 
derator ol  Pres-ylery,  and  told  him,  i  hat  if  Mr.  Barnes 
would  consent,  I  was  desirous  ot  going  at  once  to 
the  Assembly.  1  believed  itiere  was  no  danger  that 
the  Assembly  would  remand  the  case  to  the  Synod. 
But  wneii  I  stated  in  open  court  my  inteniinn  ot'  ap- 
pealing, there  was  a  distinct  a.  q  liescencc  on  the 
par.  ot  the  Presbytery  thai,  I  sliouhi  take  my  appeal 
to  the  Synod  ol  Pliiladelphia.  Mr.  Grant,  1  am  con- 
fident, \\ill  Icll  yon  so  now. 

Mr.  PiiEi-Ps.  From  the  lansruagc  ofthispart  ofthe 
paper  it  would  seem  that  Ih.ere  is  an  mieiitionof 
casting  on  (•o-presl)vt(Ts,  who  are  absent,  and  out  of 
court,  an  impuliuioii  of  duplicity  unworthy  ol"  the 
ministerial  character.  W  luii  iJr.  Juiikin  was  up  on 
a  former  occisioii,  lie  said  that  be  could  api)eal  for 
the  correctness  of  his  statement  to  all  the  lueinbera 


MR.    BARNES.  45 

of  the  Presbyterv,  who  would  jusiify  (he  correctn  !ss 
of  hi.s  sfaleiiiciii.  To  lliis  aiipiMi,  iho  me  iit)crrf  of 
Presiiyiory,  aldioui^h  Ihey  were  lorhidden  lo  Oi^eii 
their  imniihij.  fxpretjsed  iheir  die^enl  hy  shaking 
their  iuMds.  and  yet  now  tlie  (act  is  assnm  d  as  not 
to  be  di.-|Hi'cd,  and  I iu'y  arc  lorhidden  ail  oin  fjriiinity 
ol'  re.|;ly.  Is  this  lair  dealiiiii^  ?  'I'lie  as.-iMil  ul't-onie 
individuals  is  a  dillcrenl  thing  from  the  dt  dared  as- 
B  nt  ol  the  wliwie  l*re.sl)ytery.  Privale  (^onversalioa 
is;  one  i.iii.ii.'',  and  an  ollici  A  act  is  anotlier.  li  i^  un- 
necessary and  ini()ro|)er  to  im|jlic,aie  men  in  this 
man  ler,  whose  li|)s  are  sealed.  I  d)  tiiird<,  indeed, 
tliai  it  would  he  a  wiser  course  in  ihe  Pri'>hyte.  y,  to 
"five  up  llie  records,  and  not  to  Insist  upon  the  legal 
light  of  witliholiliiig  them:  but  the  Presbytery  tiave 
consiilcr.il  the  case,  and  come  lo  an  ojjposiic  conclu- 
sion I  am,  ii  iwcver,  opposed  to  the  adoption  ol'  liae 
clause  UDiv  under  discii.-siori. 

Mr.  L'ami'bcll.  Many  of  Ihe  argumenls  which 
havi;  been  usidin  tiiat  p.ipcraie  wholly  out  ol  place. 
What  if  It  sliuuki  be  provtd  tliai  ijic  Presnyiery  once 
thought  it  would  be  regular  for  Dr.  Junkin  to  appeal 
to  liiis  8ynod,  dues  tliat  provu  that  I  hey  must  of  ne- 
cessiiy  ihink  so  now,  when,  on  e.x  iinination,  they 
find  tuere  is  no  1  tw  lor  it  .'  Tlie  Presbytery's  con- 
eenl,  .uimittinii  it  lo  have  been  given,  does  not  give 
this  Synod  a  constitutional  jurisdiciion  over  Iheir 
acts.  iSo  that  this  aggravation  ol' their  oti'eiicesinay 
as  well  be  left  out. 

]Vlr.  McCalla  called  for  the  reading  of  the  clause 
again:  and  it  was  read.  1  don't  see,  said  he  any 
thing  S)  very  furious  ill  that.  An  article  is  reao  ;  iVIr. 
Barnes  objdci-  to  the  statement  :  Dr.  Junkin  answers 
him  :  and  it  is  tiien  said  that  there  is  jrreal  injustice, 
because  Al.-.  Barn  s  caiuKU  ueny  it.  Is  it  lo  i»e  ex- 
pected, wlieii  tiiis  I'reshytery  reluses  to  come  hefore 
us  in  a  iegi.nnate  manner,  that  ilicy  shall  afterwards 
be  allijivcd  to  come  ia  tiy  a  side  door,  and  take  up  all 
the  time  III  speakuia,  and  deflating  every  point  that 
may  ai  ise  ?  8ii ,  no  histoiiaii  will  ever  condemn 
eucli  an  artitde  as  this.  If  tJiese  geiilleiiun  vv.  nt  to 
come  into  court,  the  constiiution  lelis  them  uliere 
they  may  conie  and  how  :  buiil  they  uant  lo  jump  in 
at  tlie  unid.>vv,  it  is  l(>r  us  'o  say  whether  we  v\ili 
permit  u  lo  bo  done.     1  iim  against  it. 

[Mr.  Phllps  here  maile  some  remarks,  which  the 
reporter  was  prevei.ted  from  hearing.  Pie  gathered 
the  su'isi.iiice  lo  he,  that  if  Ur.  Junkin  was  allowed 
to  uiaki;  siatciiUMits  ol  laci,  tae  Pre6bj  tery  should 
have  an  Oi>)iortuniiy  of  reply.] 

Mr.  bAR.sEs.    1  do  not  wisii  lo  take  up  the  time,  or 

to  emOirr.icrs   the   Synod.     1  vmsii  ihai  the  history  of 

facts  received  liy  the  S^  iiiul  should  bv-  a  true  history  : 

and  it  is  a  trulii  thai  tne  2U  Presuyieiy,  as  a  Piesby- 

4^ 


46  TRlAl.    OF 

tcry,  took  no  order  as  to  what  bo(1y  was  to  he  appeal- 
ed lo.  In  M.ircli,  llic  I'rtvliyioiy  ilul  ik'ride  iliiil.  the 
appi'iil  vVfis  nut.  It)  ^o  up  lo  ine  A.-scinlilj  ai  that 
time;  l>ul  iii  Juiiey  ii  was  a>fit'f(l  thai  it  should  f:o  up 
regularly.  1  never  i.lji  (  led  lo  its  going  lo  ilie  As- 
sembly. Il  was  nolliiiig  lo  me.  But  il  you  adopt  llmt 
chiuse  of  llic  pro|)0;-eci  preanihle,  )  on  will  pot  yoiir- 
eelves,  us  lo  a  matier  ul  laci,  in  direct  r.olliiiun  with 
the  Fieshyiery. 

Mr.  R.  Bkeckinridge.  I  am  willing  to  meet  the 
dilliculiy,  hy  aliermg  tne  ijhr.nr^eohiiry.  and  in.'stead  of 
say  mg, ''  ihc  Pre.-<hy  n  ry  its-ell"  prev  enred,  &e."  to  say, 
*' inenibers  ot'  the  Preshyte.y."  Tins  wdl  remove 
the  ohjetioii,  since  1  perceive  ihey  hinge  i  lieir  ob- 
jecti'jn  iH\  the  liFonnd  that  the  ari  was  iioi  ottiiiul. 

Mr.  Si  EKLE  wished  ihie!  aliiTaiion  to  be  made.  I 
can  eunhrm  iiie  ^Katemeni  olMr.  Barnes,  thai  there 
was  no  direct  pre.-sli)  leriai  aeiiuii  had  upon  ii.  I  wag 
prcc^enl  ar  the  iime.  and  rememl)er  well  whai  passed. 
Tlie  Moderator  of  the  Pret-bylery  ol)served,  that  he 
hopt  d  the  brethren  would  acquiesce  and  aiituv  the 
ca.-^e  Lo  go  up  lo  ilie  As.-emiily,  that  the  qlle^lion 
niiL'-ht  be  (le  wded  by  ilie  vojce  nj'  the  whole  rluirch  ;^ 
but  irilu;y  refused,  ililifi  ^ynod  shouhl  l)e  jiut,  uut  of 
the  House,  then  the  voice  ol  ilie  wlude  churcli  would 
not  l)e  .heard.  A  fiisl  there  .-eenied  to  be  an  assent 
to  Lhn  ;  alLcrward  ho  sever,  there  vvere  one  or  I  wo 
members  of  Ihc  Probytery  who  eXf)resseu  dissent. 
That  ihe  Synod  ol  Philadelphia,  and  not  ihe  S)  nod 
ol'  Delaware,  was  meant,  1  have  no  donbt.  1  tr.ed  all 
1  could  Lo  get  Ul.  Junkm  lo  apjjeal  to  ihe  Synod  cf 
Delaware,  but  I  could  nut  sinceed. 

Dr  MDuwKLL.  1  move  >ou  that  we  refer  thia^ 
whnle  i^ibject.  10  a  committee  r  but  I  wish,  by  nay  of 
prelace  lo  that  motion,  to  otier  a  lew  rema,  ks.  My 
objeci  is  that  a  coiiiniiilee  he  appointed  lo  |)repare  a 
nimuie  to  go  upnii  oui-  records. 

Mr.  R.  J.  Brfxki.nridgi:  here  interposed  with 
warmth,  iirolesmig  ligam.si  liaving  --i  resolution  of 
this  kind  llirown  directly  across  ihe  |  alii  id  the  judi- 
catory v/hen  it  was  proeeeditig  in  ihc  discussion  ol  the 
paper  belore  it. 

Moderator.  If  ihe  motion  is  to  commit,  it  is  in 
order. 

Dr.  M'DowELL.  That  is  my  motion.  Tdo  deplore, 
and  highly  disapprove  ol  the  course  taken  by  the 
Presbytery  in  rei.ition  io  its  records;  1  regret  iideep- 
ly:  I  am  persu  uleJ  iliat  iis  ell'ecL  will  be  to  prejudice 
their  cause,  e!si)ecially  be  ore  ihe  publif.  But,  at  Ihe 
game  time,  1  iicoHect  that  our  proceedings  in  Ihia 
matter  are  all  lo  he  reviewe<l  and  closely  scrulinized 
bv  the  General  Asseadily,  and  1  wish  tliaL  we  may 
observe  so  much  caution  in  every  siep  we  lake,  that 
no  flaw  shall  be  found  |ii  any  part.   There  are  a  nura- 


Mil.    BAKNES.  47 

ber  of  expresgione  and  prinriploK  in  tlio  pripor  now  be- 
fore us,  whicli  vvc  iiiiijiii  look  at  very  dillercnily  if  we 
viewed  them  separately,  dlspassiionatcly,  ami  iiui  in 
connection  with  lliis  cajse.  The  (lajior  conlains  tfie 
conciiMiinaliori  ola  Presbytery,  and  thai  in  very  strong 
terms,  and  we  are  asked  to  adopt  it  wliile  the  I'res- 
bylery  i-s  not  heard  in  its  own  defence!  To  this  1  am 
oppo.sed.  Tiie  moment  you  proj>0!?e  lo  inHici  censure 
upon  a  Freshytery,  th';  I'resiiyiery  iios.-ess  a  i  imii  to 
be  heard.  The  Assembly  will  nor,  attend  to  the  pos- 
ture of  eircumsiiuice:^,  a  id  will  not  disriniruish  as 
Bome  ol'iis  are  (h.<|\ised  lo  do:  they  will  only  look  at 
the  litcl  toat  ttio  Presbytery  was  cond(;i!itied  unheard, 
and  t.lie  wliole  AssemMy  will  ciy  out  aiiaiost  you. 
Insleiul  of  ado|)iinj^  a  pai^er  I  ke  tiii--,  1  hopi-  wc  shall 
appoint  a  connniltee,  wjio  will  draw  up  a  temperate 
statement  ol  lacis.  such  an  one  as  we  shall  lierealter 
be  ahie  to  biok  at  with,  pleasure :  but  tins  document 
contains  languaire,  and  aprdies  it  to  a  court  ol  tfie 
Lord'*  ii  luse,  sui  li  as  1  never  could  adojit  in  ril'er- 
ence  to  the  worst  enemy  t  h  ive  on  earth.  I  trust  we 
shall  look  at  the  whole  case  temperately  .ad  cooily, 
and  mat  bel"ore  we  attempt  to  cen.'^ure  a  Presfiyiery, 
we  sli.tli  at  least  allow  tiiein  to  be  heard  in  their  own 
defence;  and  that  we  .shall  not  attempt  (o  spread 
upon  our  records  an  f.?:  parte  slatrment  of  I'acis,  such 
as  the  judicatory  may  di;oy.  1  think  the  wisest  course 
will  i)e  to  reler  iliis  nutter  to  a  committee,  and  in  the 
meanwhile  let  tSyno  I  jiroceed  with  the  trial. 

Mr.  iVICalla.  The  tl-iree  arguments  1  !,av'e  heard 
ajrainsi  the  adoption  of  this  paper  are  llie.se:  first, 
that  th'i  lan:^Uiiire  is  too  si;vere:  secondly,  thai  tb.e 
Presbytery  is  unheard:  and  lastly,  that  all  tlie  lime 
we  are  iliscus^in^  it  we  are  putiin;?  oti'  the  trial  of 
Mr.  Barnes.  i\o\v,  as  to  the  severity  ol  the  language, 
I  shi>ulil  hke  to  hear  the  clause  read  once  more. 

Mr.  R.  Brgckinkidge  n-ad  ir  aj^ain. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Very  well:  and  iiow  I  should  like 
to  see  liow  tiirtiiy  men  there  arc  on  this  floor  wiio  are 
afraid  to  handle  a  contumacious  Presbytery  without 
gloves,  and  without  a  pound  ot' nutter  in  each  liand. 

Mr.  R.  BuECKiNRiDGE.  It  is  obvious  to  me,  and 
must  be  to  nil,  that  in  this  thing  we  are  to  fight  ai^-ainst 
time,  as  well  as  against  sup|)osed  friends.  1  hope  we 
shall  be  aware  ol'  tins,  anil  that  the  Synod  will  pro- 
ceed with  the  business  before  it. 

Mr.  M"C;alla.  It  is  plain  that  this  measure  is  ia- 
tended  to  introduce  Mr.  B.irnes'  case  without  a  law- 
ful iafioduciion.  Our  wo.st  enemies  could  not  Jiave 
recommen  led  a  course  more  injurious.  We  read 
tfiat  111*^  child'-en  of  Israel  were  once  commanded  to 
make  brick,  and  that  lo  aggravate  their  hardships, 
their  cruel  task-masters  would  not  allowlhem  straw. 
And  now  it  seems  that  we  of  this  Synod  are  to  be 


48  TRIAL    OF 

sent  down  into  E^ypt,  and  treated  much  in  llie  ^ame 
Wiiy.  VVe  are  lo  ^o  at  Mr.  Banus'  case  wiilioiii  the 
necKasary  iireliiiiiii.iry  iiie.isiircs :  and  ilicn  we  are  to 
get  ourselves  kickt'd  oul  olthe  Astii-iiitdy.  And  as  to 
condeiuniii^  tiiis  Pri-sbytcry  witliout  ilieir  being 
heard,  were  they  noi  invited  to  conic  in  their  proper 
place,  and  in  die  proper  way  /  We  opened  the  door, 
li  lliey  cliose  to  »vali<  in.  I  suppose  it  is  not  necessary 
to  sei  a  cliair  lor  iIhmii,  wliile  the  whule  Synod  ehall 
stand  wailing,  c.ip  in  hand.  No,  sir;  thiy  have  re- 
fused ihe  jiir  isdiciioM  of  tins  Synod,  and  the  Synod 
can  do  its  ilnty  wuiinut  them.  When  the  linie  as- 
signed by  the  con-tiiLiiiiiii  shall  arrive,  tlif n  kn  ihem 
be  lieani,  and  not  butore.  I  am  ujiposed  to  Ihr  conv- 
milment.  A  man  who  has  liveJ  i.hrough  so  many 
BCssioMS  and  Presbyierifs  and  Assemblies  as  many  of 
us  have,  must  know  ihat  if  we  will  lio  (jur  duly  with- 
out the  lear  of  man.  llmri'.  is  a  portion  oi'  our  cuinpa- 
nioiis  whum  we  must  be  willmg  to  jiart  witii  as  soon 
as  mailers  ajiproacu  a  crisis.  It  will  alw.iys  be  so: 
it  is  hum. Ill  iiaiure,  at  ieasi  ii  is  the  nature  ol  some 
men.  And,  rely  upon  i:.  as  soon  as  you  appruarii  tlie 
enemy  mar  enough  to  see  the   whiles  of  ilu-ir  eyes, 

iron  vull  aiwa)s  lind  ihcte  men  very  gUid  lo  jumji  be- 
lind  a  log. 

Mf.  AuAiR.  Moderator,  this  paper,  which  some  of 
the  breilircn  wani  us  lo  s.v'.iliow  entiie,  is  aho-  ether 
too  li>>l,  and  loo  liigh  seasoned  lor  our  palates.  1  hope 
we  sliall  have  soiiietliiiig  in  its  |d<ice  from  il-'^  elder 
members  1)1"  tins  budy .  v,  i.i.ii  shall  be  marhd  wiih 
more  lemper  and  moderation.  Like  a  hroi.  i  r  who 
lately  addressed  yuu,  I  also  am  very  soi  ry  ii..,..  itiat 
Presuyiery  have  acted  as  they  iiavc  done.  1  wish  to 
eome  ill  the  cause  uf  Mr.  Barnes;  because  1  lai  nest- 
ly  desire  that  those  w.io  have  received  imiiressiona 
injurious  to  jiini  may  liave,  an  npporiumiy  lo  ;iei  these 
impressi'tas  c  ijrecie  I.  His  oivii  cause,  leij.ures  this: 
and  all  lliose  who  ijroless  to  be  Ins  t'rien.ls.  insiead  ot 
Bhunning,  should  e,irne.-tly  ih;maiid  an  iiislaiit  nives- 
tigaiiuii.  I  have  used  my  peisoii.d  iiiHiiCnee  to  the 
utmost  to  prevail  with  the  l'resi)ylery  lo  adopt  a  dit- 
ferenl  cour.-e,  hui  I  n  gr.t  lo  say  Uiai  it  has  lieen  in 
vain.  I  tielievc  that,  inslricln  'ss,  they  certainly  have 
a  legal  riifhl  to  lake  i he  i; round  ttuy  have  assumed; 
bui  i  am  jusi  as  fully  p  rsiiiih  d  that  by  as.-ummg  it 
thev  h  ivc  |)rejuvli(  e  I  u.xd  iiijuied  their  own  cause. 

The  (J  le.-iiin  was  i  o.v  put  on  Dr.  MDoueh's  mo- 
tion locoinmii:  and  ii  was  negatived  by  agieai  ma- 
jority. 

Tae,  question  then  recurring  on  the  adoption  of  the 
clause  ahove  staieil, 

Mr.  OriLBLRP  s  ltd  that  he  greatly  dojWted  the  fact 
which  the  clause  allirnu-il.  viz.  ihcii  ..imer  'U>-  mem- 
bers of  the  second  Presbytery,  or  the  Pretbytory  aa 


MR.   BARNES.  49 

a  body,  prevented  this  case  from  goin^  up  to  the  As- 
eenil)ly. 

Dr.  M'DowELL.  I  wish  to  know  whclher  such  ia 
the  laci.     If  It  be  so,  U-x  the  (act  now  be  staled. 

Mr.  Stkelu.     1  staled  it  to  be  a  fact. 

Mr.  Barnes.  I  wi-h  the  paper  wiiich  the  Presby- 
tery h  iiided  in  on  this  Bulijcc.t.  lo  be  read. 

Mr.  LI.  Bkeckinridgk.  The  paper  denies  it,  only 
in  re.speci  lo  the  Preijhytery  as  euch. 

Moderator.  If  the  discussion  proceeds,  there  must 
be  a  motion,  cither  to  aiiopt  or  to  arneiid. 

Mr.  Steele  here  reail  a  paper  pretcnted  by  the 
Moderator  of  the  secoritl  Presbytery  (who  was  for- 
bidden l)y  the  rules  of  proceediii,:^  to  ppeaU  in  iiis  own 
person.)  U  declared,  in  substance,  that  he,  as  an  in- 
dividual, had  not  been  opposed  to  penniilitjir  the  ease 
logo  to  the  Assrnibly,  but  hud  desired,  if  it  did  go 
tiiere,  that  the  Synod  should  not  be  deprived  of  its 
vote:  and  tiiat  this  opinion  he  liad  dcclaiedin  the 
Presbytery,  but  not  oflicially,  ms  its  Moderator. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  This  reminds  nie  of  the 
case  of  a  German  Prince,  who  was  also  a  bishop,  and 
who,  on  receiving  a  blow  remonstrated  wiih  horror: 
"  What?  do  you  dare  lo  strike  ilit;  Lord's  anoinied?" 
to  whom  his  adversary  rejilied,  "  1  do  not  stril<e  you 
as  bishop,  1  strike  you  as  Prince."  So  Mr.  Grant 
being  then  Moderator  of  I  lie  Presbytery,  and  in  the 
chair,  made  this  declaration  as  Mr.  Grant,  but  notaa 
Moderator  ! 

Mr.  PicKANDS.  I  move  you  that  this  ehtuse  of  the 
preamble  be  stricken  out ;  and  as  it  is  due  to  the  dig- 
nity of  the  house  not  to  olf-r  a  motion  w  it  bout  Hiving 
Bome  reasons  in  support  of  it,  I  will  olfer  a  lew  words 
by  way  of  explanation.  1  do  not  conceive  ihat  the 
statement  in  this  clause  is  at  all  necessary  lo  the 
strength  ol' the  representation.  The  document  does 
not  proless  to  state  that  this  act  was  done  by  the 
Presoyiery,  but  only  by  certain  members  ol  the  Pres- 
bytery. Ii  is  stated  as  the  act  of  the  members  in  their 
private  capaciiy  ;  but  as  members  they  are  not  here 
allowed  to  deny  it:  they  shake  llie  r  heads  but  must 
not  speak.  In  the  meanwhile  we  have  no  evidence  lo 
prove  the  assertion.  The  statement  by  Mr.  Steele 
does  not  show  it.  Mr.  Steele,  indeed,  lells  you  thtt 
the  Moderator  assented,  but  that  ihere  was  no  Pres- 
byterial  action  in  regard  to  the  matter,  and  that 
thougfi  the  Moderator's  opinion  did  seem  for  a  tima, 
generally  to  prevtiil,  yet  that  . afterwards  lliere  were 
come  nl'the  members  who  objected,  and  expressed  m 
opposite  opinion.  And  would  it  not  be  a  marvellous 
thing  il'such  a  man  as  Dr.  Junkin  bad  been  hii'dcr  d, 
by  an  expression  of  the  Moderaioi's  opinion,  fr  «m 
taking  his  appeal  to  a  court  which  was  regularly  op  -n 
l9  him  ?    I  repeat,  that  we  have  not  one  particle  of 


50  TRIAL    OF 

evi  Icncc  ill  \t  llie  mr.^tiSers  of  lliat  Presbytery,  as  in- 
(iivi.luals,  or  lliiif  till-  Prc.-liyU'ry,  as  a  body,  ever  did 
liiiiihT  L)r.  Junkiii  Irmii  cu  r>iii^  liis  a|)i)ciil  iiiio  any 
jijJ:.-.;iii»iy  lie  sliouiil  iliink  lit:  nor  diil  Uii-y.  so  lar  ua 
<il)|)e.irs,  LJirow  I  he  MiiilU'st  b,ir  in  lii*-  way.  1  dL-sire 
tliu  claiisi',  stricken  oui,  because  it  i.s  not.  Jiislorieally 
true,  .lud  1  am  sure  tn  u  lue  inov-er  of  ii  never  vvoidd 
wisb  to  -preud  on  the  niiimtes  ol'  tliis  iSynod  u  siuto- 
merit  xvhich  is  not  torrectin  lacl.  The  i  laiise  al- 
leijes  an  aggravation  in  the  olleiice  oriiie  Presl»ytery 
ol"  u iiich  vvc  nave  no  prool. 

Tlii;  qaeslion  beiii^  jKit  on  strikin";  out,  it  was  riega- 
tived. 

Til :  readin^r  of  tiie  paper  was  then  resumed  as  fol- 
lows : 

''  .in  1  iliis  at  a  poriod  wlien  ihcrc  was  a.id  could  be  no 
Synud  lo  ttliK'h  he  could  uppoal  but  lliis  Synod." 

Mr.  GiLnioirr.  I-  that  a  liict  ? 

Dr.  Ji  NKi\,  I  a.'iUed  d'  1  could  appeal  to  the  Synod 
of  Delaware,  and  ihe  members  all  taid  "  JNo,  you 
cannot;  there  is  no  such  synod.'' 

The  readinij  then  a;,^ain  prucecded. 

'•.Kirsi,  B(.ciiuL-e  the  Asseiiib  y  had  ordered  ihe  dissolution 
of  ihc  Synod  ol  i3t  nwar.,  helore  the  iitM  staled  mectinu:  to 
which  thai  synod  stood  ac'jnirned;  and  iheie  is  no  prwvision 
kni'Wii  In  us  lor  any  ]iro  re  naUi  ineiting  of  any  syin-d." 

Dr.  McUowi;ll.  1  think  iJiis  clause  had  beiier  be 
stricken  ouf.  The  point  referred  to  is  not  settled  ; 
there  is  no  use  in  such  a  statement ;  it  will  only  ia- 
volve  us  in  diHiculiics. 

Nlr.  GiLREtiT.  In  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  our  book 
of  Churcii  Government,  there  is  a  iicneral  piovi».ion 
winch  admits  of  ihe  calliiij^  of  (iiui  juilicatory  by  the 
motlera.or  pio  re.  iiatu  ;  and  it  may  apply,  lor  aught 
tliat  appears,  as     til  to  a  synod,  as  to  a  presbytery. 

Dr.  CuYi-ER.  Il  that  construciion  is  iiood,  then  the 
clause  will  apply  equally  to  the  moderaior  of  the 
General  A>seinl)ly  also. 

Mr.  CAMrnKi.i,.  1  move  you  that  this  portion  of  the 
preamble  he  stricken  out.  1  admit  that  ihe  conslruc- 
tion  mcniioned  by  brother  Gilbert  is  consiruciiort 
only  ;  and  1  should  not  be  very  strenuous  in  insistinff 
upon  il  :  thongli  1  do  not  see  l)Ut  what  ihe  rule  will 
apply  .is  f lirly  in  this  case  as  in  any  oJier.  The 
constitution  does  not  say  "  Presbytery,"  but  it  says 
'•  juilicatory  ":  and  ihui  term  will  as  well  include  a 
eyii'Hl  as  a  jiresbytery. 

Dr.  J.  BuKCKiNiiiDGK.  I  do  hope  that  inasmuch  as 
the  tirsi  cl.iuse  is  siio.ijr  enough,  ihat  the  second  will 
be  slricken  out.  The  Synod  of  Delaware  could  not 
meet  unless  called  pro  in  iisda  ;  and  the  biter  cd'ihe 
clerk  which  has  heen  read  was  evidenily  written  in 
full  view  oflbe  lact  ihal  the  adjaurnid  meeting  of 
that  synod  would  be  superceded  by  a  previous  meet- 


MR.   BARNES.  51 

in?  of  this  bodv.     But  wliy  eliould  we  discjFS  this, 
whori  I  he  other  claiit-c  i.-^  s;ii(Tifieiit  ' 

1*"  '.'.v""'/;ar  r.  li.  i.s  ii  very  doubidil  point  whether 
a  moderator  ol'ihis  synod  eiin  or  cann  ii  rail  a  pro  re 
nciLi  oicetinif  ol"  t^ynod  :  and  wiiy  should  we  coaimit 
ourpelves  on  such  aquestioji  ?  It  has  heen  tent  down 
to  the.  preshyterie.s  iiir  deci:--inr),  and  they  will  decide 
it.  As  to  what  hrotlier  Cu\ler  said  about  the  rules 
in?,lu  lin-j;  ihe  moderator  ol'  au  aesenibly,  as  much  ay 
the  modt'raior  ol"  a  .synod,  he  overlooks  a  jireat  and 
obvious  (iillerence  betwceri  them  :  the  synod  is  a  per- 
maiiHiit  body,  the  assembly  is  not.  'Tbe  synod  con- 
tinues, and  may  be  called  lo;?eiher  if  need  he  ;  bit 
when  tlie  assembly  adjourns,  it  is  gone:  it  is  out  of 
existence:  there  is  no  assembly  to  be  called,  and  no 
inoileralor  to  call  it. 

The  (juesrion  was  now  put  on  striking  out  the 
clause,  and  decided  in  the  negaiive. 

The  readin^^  of  I  lie  docament  then  proceeded. 

"And  sccdndiv,  because,  even  il'aii  ai  peiil  had  I  een  taken 
to  the  Synod  of  Djiaware  and  a  ;»■(;  re  nu^u  meeting  had  i  een 
lawfully  called,  tiiere  is  great  reason  to  cluuht  wiieilier  accor- 
ding to  c)ur  consiiiiition  that  synod  coid^l  have  tried  the  case 
while  two  pre  sbyieries  only  could  sit  as  judge-.  The  synod 
having  out  three,  and  one  of  theiii  beni^  excludi.tl,  as  the 
court  appealed  Iroin.' 

Mr.  W-VNKOOP.  I  move  you  that  this  clause  be 
stricken  out. 

Mr.  Breckinridge.  The  brother  will  observe  that 
the  clause  iloes  not  stale  it  as  a  thinir  ceriain,  that 
Buch  a  synoil  could  not  try  ihe  tiiipeal  ;  but  only  speaks 
of  this  as  a  tiling  extremely  doutnlul.  The  I'rcsby- 
tery  which  tried  tlie  cause  must  be  ext-luded,  of 
course:  there  then  remains  oidy  two  presbyteries  to 
decide  the  case;  and,  accordiiijr  lo  oar  book,  two 
presbyteries  do  not  consiilutc  a  synotl.  The  booke.\- 
pressly  declares  that  ibree  presbyteries  are  requisite 
to  constitute  a  synod,  and  that  there  cannot  even  be 
a  quorum  to  do  business  unless  the  three  presbyteries 
are  represented.  It  is  iherelore  to  my  mind  intinitely 
clear  that  the  SyiioJ  of  Delaware  could  not  have 
tried  the  appeal  even  if  it  had  iroiie  there.  Yet,  out 
of  deference  to  an  opposite  optmon,  exi)ressed  by 
Bome  brethren,  I  have  only  sa  d  "  that  there  is  sreat 
reason  to  douht"  on  this  point.  I  hope  the  clause 
may  be  retained,  because,  as  far  a-?  it  i^oes,  it  strenjjth- 
ens  our  reasons  for  passing  censure  on  the  presby- 
tery. I  hope  this  case  wi'l  be  suliicient  to  show  the 
folly  ofattemi)tin?  to  draw  u  >  a  |)aper  which  shall 
gather  in  the  opinions  of  every  individual  who  may 
hdpi)en  to  take  general  views  of  the  same  kind. 

Mr.  Grier.  I  hope  that  the  clause  will  not  be 
etricken  out.  Itdoes  ai)pear  strange  to  me  that  where 
language  has  been  adopted  with  the  express  view  to 


5^  TRIAL   OF 

conc.ilia.lion,  all  the  brethren  who  are  on  one  side 
shill  i'lsis!  en  f^ivinii  it.  iheir  own  construction. 

Dr.  Ml  DowELL.  !  c;ill  the  attention  ofpynod  to  our 
form  nriiDveriiinent.  cliai)lcr  10,  section  1st.  Tiiis  sec- 
tion thows  liuw  iiidiiy  |)reshyti;ries  are  necci=sary  to 
coMstiliite  a  synod;  and  it  dies  require  three  pret^hy- 
teries  lor  th  ii  purpo.~o.  But  then,  in  the  Iburtli  sec- 
tion, if  expr'  j:.-ly  declares  that  a  synod  "  shall  have 
power  lo  luceive  and  issue  appeiil.*."  1  know  that,  in 
the  second  section  there  is  something  said  about  a 
quorum:  but  to  make  the  liook  consistent  wilii  ilselK 
[and  that  is  a  sound  principle  in  conslructini?  hiwsj 
we  must  suppose  that  the  riresbylery  appealed  i'rom 
niiiy  constitute  a  partofthe  q\iurum,  though  not  ol 
the  court.  The  l)Ook,  at  all  events,  (iocs  declare  that 
three  presliyieries  are  a  synod,  and  that  such  synod 
can  issue  nil  appeals.  Why,  sir,  in  the  earl>  history 
of'o'.ir  church,  tlie  most  of  our  .synods  were  in  this 
Biluiiiion:  they  consisted  but  of  three  presbsieries ; 
and  yet  they  did  try  apjjeals:  it  must  have  been  by 
two  presbyierir's  sittiiu'  on  the  act  of  the  third.  I 
hope  that  ihc  clause  will  he  stricken  out.  I  want  the 
document  strenu:ihened,  not  weakened  ;  and  1  want 
it  to  app.;nr  in  such  a  form  thai  the  assembly  shall 
not  find  lault  with  us. 

Dr.  Uatucvri'.  Under  our  old  consUlution,  even 
if  thirty  members  were  present  they  constituted  no 
quorum  uidcss  they  came  from  three  dill'irent  Pies- 
byt(;rie.s.  We  had  fr»  quenily  to  wait  lor  days  io<?c- 
ther  helbre  we  could  do  t)usiiiess:  and  sometimes  we 
had  to  break  up  and  go  home.  The  Synod  died,  and 
had  to  be  resusciiaied  uiraiii  by  the  General  Assem- 
ble. The.  question  was  even  raised  in  the  A-^si'mbly 
wiiether  it  was  any  longer  a  Synod  or  not.  Our  sy- 
nods had  none  of  them  scarcely  more  than  three  Pree- 
byteries.  Do  brethren  suppose  the  Assendtly  could 
mean  that  sucii  a  body  could  not  issue  an  appeal? 
Do  they  supposp  they  were  worse  than  common 
idiots?  Why  shall  we  commit  ourselves  by  statiag 
in  t  ie  face  of  the  Assembly  what  they  know  not  to  be 
the  fact? 

Mr.  MiisoRAVE.  I  am  in  f.ivor  of  strikinir  out.  A 
Synod  surely,  be  it  smaller  or  lar^^er,  must  possess 
the  riirht  )f  issuing  appeals,  and  if  there  are  but 
three  Presbyteries  it  is  of  necessity  that  two  olihem 
may  set  in  jud  .■.nioiit  upon  the  acts  of  the  third.  And 
unless  you  omit  a  pomt  which  is  so  doubilul,  you 
■will  embarrass  the  passage  of  this  paper,  and  detach 
from  it  many  who  approve  uf  its  general^  principles 
and  who  would  otherwise  vote  lor  it.  If  you  keep 
this  clause,  there  are  some  wiio  wdi  be  bound  in  con- 
science lo  vote  a<jainst  it.  There  is  no  strong  neces- 
sity for  retaiiuiig  it;  and  why  should  we  throw  dilli- 
cullies  in  our  own  way. 


MR.    BARNES.  M 

Dr.  CuYLER.  I  concur  in  ihe  same  views  which 
have  been  expressed  by  those  who  opi  ose  this  clause. 
Our  Book  timet  be  interpreted  in  consistency  witli 
itself,  and  as  this  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  doubtful 
and  disputable  position,  it  will  be  best  to  frive  it  up, 

Mr.  II.  Breckinkiuge.  Well :  if  that  is  the  general 
wish,  1  will  not  insist. 

The  question  beirij^  now  put  on  the  motion  to  strike 
out,  it  was  carried:  and  the  clause  was  stricken  out 
accordingly. 

The  reading  of  the  paper  was  resumed. 

"  And  whereas  this  Synod  has  passed  a  special  order  direc- 
ting said  Presbytery  to  produce  the  Record  neceseary  in  the 
case  on  trial ; — which  older  ihe  Presbytery  explicitly  refuse! 
to  obey  :  now,  therefore  be  it  Resolvecf, 

That,  in  the  judgment  of  this  Synod,  the  conduct  of  the 
(Assembly's)  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  in  all  tho 
Tpremises  is  obsti7iate,  vexatious,  urjust,  uncandid,  conluma' 
cious,  and  grossly  disorderly." 

Dr.  M'DowELL.  1  tTiovc  you  that  all  ol  these  epi- 
thets save  the  word  "  disorderly,"  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Rob.  Bricckinridge.  Let  us  have  the  question 
on  each  word  separately. 

The  question  was  accordingly  put,  on  each  of  the 
above  words,  s^/to^/w,  and  the  motion  tosiiikeout 
was  voted  down  by  acclamation.  And  the  paper, 
thus  far,  was  adopted  by  a  great  majority. 

The  reading  was  then  resumed. 

"  Resolved,  fartlier,  that  before  the  adjournment  of  this 
Synod,  such  other  and  final  ordei  as  may  seem  necessary  be 
tai<en  in  this  case." 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  Why  is  any  farther  order 
necessary  ? 

Mr.  M'KiNLEY.    1  see  no  need  of  any  thing  further. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  U  may  not  be  necessary  lo 
do  more,  and  why  then  pledge  ourselves  to  do  more? 
1  hope  it  will  not  be  pressed. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.    I  consent  to  withdraw  it. 

The  clause  was  accordingly  withdrawn. 

The  second  parairr^ph  of  the  paper  was  then  read, 

"And  whereas  the  (Assembly's)  Second  Presbytery  of  Phi- 
ladelphia has  suppressed  the  record  in  the  case  in  which  Dr. 
Junkin  has  appealed  to  the  Synod  from  the  decision  of  the 
Preshytery  in  the  case  of  iVIr.  Barnes  :  and  whereas,  this  Sy- 
nod has  used,  without  success,  such  means  as  seemed  proper 
to  obtain  possession  of  said  recoids,  as  proof  in  the  case  :  and 
whereas,  it  is  known  to  Synod  that  true  copies  of  all  the  pro- 
ceedings and  proof  m  the  case  are  from  other  sources  acces- 
sible to  it  :"  — 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  do  not  know  this  person- 
ally :  but  I  believe  we  have  prool  that  such  is  the 
case. 

Mr.  Steele.  There  is  present  a  true  copy  of  the 
judgment  given  by  the  Presbytery,  duly  certified: 
and  a  copy  of  ail  the  testimony  adduced  by  Dr.  Jun- 
& 


54  TRIAL   OF 

kin  before  the  Presbytery  is  also  here  ;  but  not  of  all 

the  proi'oeilii)t;s. 

Dr.Jn.NKiN.  1  hnve  a  copy  of"  the  sentence,  duly 
cerlilioil  :  ami  a  copy  of  llie  te.^iiniony,  beiiifr  ihe  very 
ennie  iuentical  paper  whicli  1  ustil  be!'i/re  the  Pres- 
bytery     Tliic!  I  can  prove  by  parole  evjileiice. 

Mr.  II.  Bi!t:(  KiMiiDCK.  1  liave  akereti  the  phrase- 
olo;ry  so  as  lo  include  only  ilie  sentence  and  the  evi- 
dence. 

The  reading  as^ain  proceeded  : 

"  And  wheru-is  the  oriiiinal  parlies  have  been  asked,  and 
have  declared  iheir  rcadiiies-s  ioi  trial :  and  H  does  not  appear 
to  Synod  thai  the  eause  of  the  appelii  c  would  be  pnjudiced 
by  tlie  conduct  of  said  Presbytery  in  suppressing  then  cords, 
as  stated  above,  contrary  to  tlie  order  of  Synod,  and  ilie  wish 
of  the  appellant  :" 

Mr.  MusGHWE.  I  would  ask  vvhellicr  Mr.  Barnca 
is  now  rt-aily  lor  trial,  alter  his  Presbytery  have  re- 
fused to  ibriii.-h  tin  ee  docuiiienls  ? 

Mr.  R.  BnECKt.NRiDGE.  The  clause  goes  on  his  own 
adniifsion. 

'■  And  whereas  the  cause  of  truth,  and  the  glory  of  God,  do, 
in  the  judgment  ot  this  Synod,  require  it  to  make  still  furth«r 
efforts  10  issue  this  case:  therelore 

Resolved,  Tluil  S  nod  will  now  proceed  to  hear  a.nd  dis- 
pose OF  THE  APPtAi.  now  pending. 

Tiie  (iuet^tioi)  heitij,^  juit  uii  the  adoption  of  these  ee 
veral  clauses,  ami  ilieii  of  the  whole  pa|»er,  as  amend- 
ed, it  was  carried.     So  the  preamble  and  rcooluiiona 
were  adopted. 

Moderator.  The  Syno.i  Iiavinjr  resolved  to  issuo 
the  appeal,  ii  remains  that  we  now  proceed  in  the 
several  siejjs  of  the  |)rocee(lin^  according  to  the  di- 
rections oi  the  Book  ol  Discipline;  which  1  will  now 
read. 

Chap.  7.  sec.  3.  sub.  sec.  8.  In  taking  up  an  appeal,  after 
ascertaining  ih  it  the  ap|)eliant  on  liis  pari,  has  conducted  it 
regularly,  it\v Jirsl  step  shall  be  to  read  tin;  sentenco:  appealed 
from:  bctoiidLij,  to  reiid  the  reasons  which  weie  assii,'ried  by 
the  appellant  lor  his  appeal,  and  whieli  areo.i  record  :  tkirdly, 
to  read  ihe  w:ioIl;  record  of  the  pror-eedings  of  the  interior  ju- 
dicatory in  the  case,  including  all  the  lesiitnony,  and  the 
reasons  ol  their  decision  :  fourility,  to  hear  the  on^^inal  par- 
ties;  yi/J/i/]/,  to  hear  any  ot  the  nicinbcrs  of  the  inferior  judi- 
catory, 111  eAplanation  of  the  grounds  of  iheir  decision,  or  of 
their  dissent  from  it. 

Tie  lirst.  ttep  is,  to  read  the  sentence  ap|)ealed 
from.  Thai  senleiice  will  now  be  read  :  and,  during 
the  readiiii;;,  1  hope  that  the  uiinost  order,  silence, 
and  atieniion  will  he  observed. 

Mr.  McCalla.  Before  we  proceed,  I  move  you 
thai  one  uf  I ht:  inemhere  engage  in  prayer  ibr  the 
Diviie  diretuion  and  aid.     It  was  agreed  lo. 

The  Moderator  ihen  called  upon  Dr.  Cuyler,  who 
made  solemn  prayer  to  Gud. 


MR.    BARNES.  55 

The  Rcntcnce  of  (he  Presbytery  wis  Mien  read. 

Synod  llipn  took  a  rt'cesr^  uriiil  7  o'cln(!k. 

Synod  luivin^  met  alter  reccpp,  iVc  Moderate- said 
that  the  next  pie|)  would  be  1r,  hear  tjie  reasons  ofthe 
oppellant  for  hit;  appeal,  as  the  panic  were  on  record. 

The  reasons  ofappeal  were  thereupon  read. 

MonicKATOR.  The  tiiird  ste|)  is  1o  read  ihe  whole 
of  the  profpcdin^s  and  the  tet^iimony,  inrhidi  iir  the 
reason.*  ofthe  decision  as  Fet  forth  by  ihe  Presb  lery. 

Mr.  R.  BRn:cKENuiDCi:.  I  move  that  the  Clerk  en- 
ter iiiion  the  in  inn  I  es  of  Synod  the  reason  wiiy  the 
"whole  proceedinsrs"  were  not,  read.  This  was 
agreed  to:  and  the  followini?  minute,  beinoj  drawn 
up  by  Mr.  R.  Brerkinrid;?e,  was  adopted,  viz. 

"Thnt  the  iphole  proceedings  of  the  Cdiii  t  below,  which 
ought  orderly  to  be  now  read,  nre  not  road,  for  tiie  reason, 
that  ihn  Se<:ond  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  di  fianeeof  the 
order  of  S\nnd,  without  otjection  by  the  appellee,  has  re- 
fused to  produce  the  record." 

said,  that  this  minute  was  ne- 
cessary, because  advantage  mijriii.  hereafter  be  taken 
to  say  that  the  appellee  ohifcted  to  the  doings  of  his 
PresHytery  in  withholding  the  records:  and  therefore 
the  Synod  should  be  certain  whether  He  does  object 
or  not. 

Mr.  Barnes.  That  much  states  the  historical  fact, 
have  two  or  three  letters  which  I 
intend  to  read.  One  is  my  letter  to  the  Presbytery. 
It  forms  a  part  of  what  should  have  come  from  the 
Presbytery  as  the  history  of  the  proceedinsrs.  I  in- 
tend to  read  it  as  such.  Is  this  the  proper  time? 
tery7  Was  the  letter  read  in  the  Presby- 

That  is  a  rjurstion  which  I  think  I 
should  not  answer.  T  think  that  it  ou?ht  to  be  an- 
ewered  either  by  the  Presbytery  or  by  Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  Barnes.  I  ''annot  tell,  until  I  hear  the  letter 
read.  I  cannot  rertify  to  the  paper,  as  I  am  neither 
Moderator  nor  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery. 

Tiie  letter  of  which  I  have  here  the 
copy,  is  the  oriirinal  letter  addressed  by  me  to  the 
Presbytery,  statin?:  the  charges  I  intended  to  bring 
aorainst  Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  MoRss.  We  must  first  know  what  we  are  go- 
ing  to  prove,  and  then  march  up  to  the  point  at  once. 
I  do  not,  myself  yet  know  whether  Mr.  Barnes  is  on 
trial  belore  us,  or  vvherher  it  is  the  Presbytery  we 
are  to  try.  1  want  clearly  to  understand  what  is  the 
busine.^s  we  have  to  do. 

Moderator.    Synod  is  issuing-  an  appeal. 

Mr.  Morss.  Does  the  appeal  refer  to  a  decision  of 
the  Presbytery  7  and  are  we  trying  them  ?  or  are  we 
tryinsr  Mr.  Barnes? 

Mr.  Pickands.  Brother  Morss  is  one  of  the  judges 
here,  and  has  a  right  to  know. 


56  TRIAL    OF 

The  business  belore  the  Synod  is  to 
take  up  an  appeal  and  issue  it, 

Mr.  McCalla.  Brethren  should  withhold  such 
questions.     We  know  our  A.  B.  C. 

Does  this  minute  mean  that  Mr. 
Barnes  did  not  object  to  the  presbytery's  withliolding 
the  documents. 

Me.  11.  Breckinridge.  That  is  the  meaning,  and  the 
whole  meaning. 

Mr.  Cauoti;eiis.  As  one  of  the  judges  in  this  case 
I  obj»."Cl  to  the  principle  of  that  minute.  I  am  not  very 
convt-rsant  in  the  moJes  of  proceecliiis;  in  ecclesias- 
tical courts:  but  this  involves  a  Sffcat  principle,  ip 
reppect  to  which  my  understanding  is  directly  at  vari- 
ance with  this  nnnule.  We  are  here  calling  in  a 
party  to  say  that  he  will  not  in  future  object  to  the 
record  on  which  we  are  |)roceeding.  I  never  will 
consent  to  put  the  trial  on  any  such  grounds.  It  is 
utterly  contrary  to  all  correct  principles.  That  an 
accused  party  shall  be  called  upon  to  admit  the  cor- 
rectness iif  our  record,  or  else  he  must  give  up  hia 
constitutional  right  of  hereafter  objecting  to  the  mode 
in  which  his  trial  lias  been  conducted.  I  admit  that 
in  civil  suits,  pleas  may  be  put  in  wiiich  admit,  by  im- 
phcation,  the  regularity  of  all  prior  proceedings.  But 
in  a  criminal  process  v/e  are  to  proceed  as  in  a  court 
of  criminal  jurisdiction:  and  it  is  highly  improper  for 
the  court  to  make  a  record,  and  tlTen  to  attempt  to 
establish  its  correct ncse  by  calling  on  tb.c  accused  to 
admit  or  deny  it:  you  have  no  right  to  call  upon  him 
to  admit  or  deny  any  thing  in  ihe  matter,  but  simp'ly 
to  say  whether  he  is  guilty  or  not  guilty.  He  is  en- 
titled to  object  to  every  thing  that  is  objectionable  in 
the  mode  of  conducting  his  trial.  It  is  his  constitu- 
tional right.  But  that  minute  assumes  a  fact  from 
the  silence  of  the  accused.  To  this  I  object. 

[From  the  distance  i)osiiion  of  Mr.  Carothers,  he 
was  hut  imperf«3lly  heard  by  the  Repnrter.J 

Mr.  11.  Breckinridge.  If  the  lact  were  as  that 
brother  supposes  it  to  be,  his  argument  would  be  un- 
answerable. But  it  is  not  so.  We  certainly  have 
the  right  to  make  a  record  of  the  factof  what  the  ac- 
cused does.  We  are  not  calling  upon  him  either  to 
admit  or  to  deny  anything.  It  was  incumbent  on  us 
to  Slate  the  attitude  Mr.  Barnes  holds  in  regard  to 
the  contested  evidence  withheld  by  the  Presi>yiery. 
He  is  a  member  of  that  Presl)ytery,  and  a  party  in 
in  this  trial.  He  stood  silently  by,  and  saw  his  Prey- 
bytery  contumaciously  suppress  the  proof  necessary 
to  the  trial;  when,  had  he  but  expressed  sudi  a 
wish,  the  testimony  would  have  been  produced.  We 
are  now  going  on  the  next  best  testimony  within  our 
reach:  and  he  may  ol>ject  to  this,  because  the  records 
of  the  Presbytery  are  the  best  evidence  in  the  case  t(k 


Mit.    BARNES.  SY 

guard  as^aiiist  this,  we  now  enter  the  (hcA.  npon  our 
record  that  lie  did  not  olijecl  to  iFie  siippreseion  of 
those  record-,  hy  his  Presbytery.  HMr.  Barnee  will 
eay  that  lie  objects  to  it,  or  that  ho  attempted  to  pre- 
vent it,  I  will  erase  ii  in  a  moment.  God  i'orbid,  I 
should  enter  upon  record  what  is  not  true.  I  ilesire 
to  use,  in  tin's  case,  the  utmost  i^cntleness  and  candor. 
Mr.  Camphei.l.  Make  an  epi-ome  of  this  argu- 
ment, and  see  how  it  looks.  It  Mr.  Barnes  does  not 
Kiy  that  his  Presbytery  diil  wroiiir,  we  will  s:o  on  to 
violate  the  Constitution,  by  trying  him  without  that 
proof  which  the  Constitution  requires.     Such  an  ar- 

fument  sounils  stran^'e: — and  from  such  a  quarter, 
'he  Constitution  requires  that  the  whole  proceedings 
heiow,  with  all  the  evidence,  shall  be  read  before  we 

frocecd.     Hear  it. 
See  ihe  extract  from  Book  of  Discipline  quoted  just 
above. J 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  The  only  reason  I  have  not 
•hewed  why  we  proceed  without  this,  is,  that  the 
Synod  have  not  resolved  that  they  will  proceed  with- 
out it. 

Mr.  Campbell.  Then  it  seems  we  may  violate  the 
Constitution  provided  Mr.  Barnes  will  not  blame  the 
doings  of  his  Prctbytery.  He  mubi,  take  sides,  it  ap- 
pears, ayaiiist  his  brethren;  then  we  will  not  pro- 
ceed: but  il"  he  will  not  do  this,  then  it  is  a  good 
reason  why  we  shall  go  on  !  Can  any  thing  on  earth 
be  more  .supremely  ridiculous? 

Mr.  MfSGRAVE.  CinnoL  we  divide  the  questioa? 
Is  it  not  euoLijjh  to  say  what  precedes  this,  without 
saying  a  word  about  Mr.  Barnes  ?  I  move  to  strike 
out  that^  part. 

Mr.  (JiEsox.  Mr.  Barnes  did  admit  that  the 
minute  contained  a  true  record  of  the  historical  fact. 

Mr.  B.vRNEs.  The  Synod  has  a  right  to  make  any 
record  on  ii.-^  minutes  which  it  pleases.  I  shall  not 
contest  tiiat  riiriu:  nor  iiave  I  objected  to  the  minute 
proposed.  You  liave  not  called  upon  me  to  do  so: 
nor  could  3011  lawfully  do  so:  and  the  Synod  1  believe 
80  understood  the  matter.  And  so  far  as  Synod 
know,  tiiat  may  be  (he  reason  why  I  did  not  object. 
But  \\  ill  il  not  appear  that  the  Synod  felt  embarrassed 
and  Wished  to  bring  me  in,  inlhe  unhappy  relation  ia 
which  1  stand  ;  in  coiilrarieiy  to  all  deliCMcy  ? 

Mr.  II  Breckinridge,  lam  uilling  to  go  on  and 
etate  all  thai  is  inie.  I  think  the  claufc  should  not 
be  stricken  out.  Mr.  Barnes  stands  here  in  a  double 
attitude  ;  he  is  both  a  parly,  and  a  Presbyter.  And 
thougii  we  hrive  no  ri.ht  to  ask  him  wluuher  he  ob- 
jects to  the  doiuiTs  ol'his  Presbytery  or  not,  we  have 
a  right  10  state  f  icis.to  fortily  the  correctness  of  our 
course,  before  a  future  tribunal, which  is  to  pass  judg- 
ment upon  it. 

5* 


58  TRIAL   OF 

Dr.  Green.  I  hope  the  clause  will  not  he  ptrickeis 
out.  We  have.  I  tliink,  eulfirient  indications  to  warrt 
U9  to  be  on  our  jruard  airainst  every  exception  which 
it  shall  be  possible  to  take.  Rely  upon  it,  everv  ex- 
ception til  It  can  be  taken  will  be  t.iken  in  the  higher 
court.  Now  as  this  is  the  mere  statement  of  an  his- 
torical troth,  and  asii  may  meet  an  exception,  1  hops 
it  will  not  be  etricketi  out. 

Mr.  Gilbert.  Does  the  minute  relate  to  the  past 
only  7  or  also  to  the  future?  As  to  the  past,  it  states 
what  is  true ;  but  not  what  may  be  true  in  future. 

Mr.  Bauncs.  If  you  will  add  that  the  Synod  did 
not  ask  me  whether  i  objected  or  no,  the  nuuute  will 
then  state  tht;  whole  truth. 

Dr.  M'DowELL.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  waive 
all  I  his,  till  we  see  what  evidence  we  have? 

Mr.  R.  Brcckinridge.  The  moderator  stated  that 
this  was  I  tie  proper  place. 

Mr.  Mc:jGRAVE.  Is  't  uot  enough  that  no  objection 
appears?  This  leaves  the  case  just  as  it  oujijht  to 
be.  It  leaves  it  entirely  open.  It  places  us  on  equal 
terms  vvith  iMr.  Barnes  before  the  Assembly,  ll' he 
objects  there,  we  can  say,  why  did  you  not  object  in 
the  court  below  ?  Then  both  vvill  stand  upon  an 
equality.  But  if  we  shall  now  attempt  to  take  the 
advantage  of  iiim  bv  sayinjj  that  he  made  no  objection 
to  the  acts  of  his  Presbytery,  when  he  was  not  in 
circumstances  to  say  either  yea  or  nay,  we  shall  not 
appear  well  before  those  who  are  to  judge  us.  As 
judges  we  had  better  omit  what  may  appear  like  a 
wisli  to  take  advantage  of  the  situation  of  the  ac- 
cused. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  think  not.  There  is  a 
brother, who  isa  lawyer  ofdistinction  (Mr.Carothers) 
thinks  it  important  that  this  should  be  stricken  out ; 
but  I  say  iliat  it  is  important  it  should  be  kept  in. 

Mr.  Carothers.  1  do  not  take  either  side  in  the 
matter.  1  am  not  an  advocate  or  a  party,  but  a 
Jud^e. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  am  not  a  party  either,  but 
am  a  Judge  too  :  yet  my  understanding  is  not  a  mere 
tabula  rasa;  1  have  an  opinion.  He  admits  that  if 
the  clause  is  put  in,  it  will  prejudice  one  side.  1  say 
that  if  it  is  left  out  it  will  injure  the  other.  I  consider 
it  very  important  that  it  should  be  retained  :  it  may 
influence  the  whole  decision.  Mr.  Barnes  is  not  re- 
quired to  say  anything.  He  stands  nakedly  before  us 
with  a  verdict  in  his  iace:  but  he  also  stands  here  as 
a  Presbyter:  and  it  is  proper  that  our  recorU  should 
shew  that  as  a  Presliyier  he  did  not  object  to  the 
withholding  of  these  records. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  There  are  two  parties  in  this  mat- 
ter. Mr.  Barnes  has  spoken  what  is  condemnatory 
of  the  Synod;  and  the  Synod  have  done  the  same 
with  respect  to  him. 


Mil.    BARNES.  59 

Mr.  Barnes.  I  do  not  know  when  I  have  so  epoken. 
I  ehoiild  be  ijlail  to  hear  when  it  whs. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Then  I  am  mislnken.  But  did  not 
Mr.  Barnes  say  ihat  to  enter  such  a  record  would  be 
to  do  an  act  ot  injustice  lo  him  ? 

MoDEKATOK.  No :  he  Said  it  would  be  recording 
whatwiis  historical  truth. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Well :  I  will  leave  off  stating  what 
Mr.  Barnes  saiil  till  I  can  hear  better.  It  is  obviaua 
that  there  are  two  did'ereni  and  opposite  objects  de- 
sired in  this  house.  There  is  aimrlion  of  the  mem- 
bers ol'  this  Synod  who  wisli  that  this  prosecution 
may  be  dropped  ;  or  that  if  it  is  not,  it  may  Tail.  And 
there  is  another  and  a  larger  portion  who  desire  that 
we  shouM  goon  to  issue  this  appeal.  Now  here  is  a 
document  brought  belore  us  which  may  be  instru- 
mental ill  issuitig  it,  shall  we  reject  it,  or  adopt  it  7 

Now  supposing  a  vessel  was  bound  for  a  certain 
port,  and  litting  out  for  her  voyage  :  a  portion  of  her 
owners  are  opposed  to  the  voyage,  and  had  rather 
the  vessel  went:  to  the  bottom  of  ihe  ocean,  than  to 
her  destined  haven.  These  men,  if,  while  the  ship  is 
fitting  for  sea,  they  can  take  out.  ol  her  some  bolt  or 
fastening,  or  screw,  or  plank,  and  thus  cnuse  her  to 
leak  and  to  founder,  will  take  pains  to  do  ir.  I  have  so 
often  seen  a  course  like  this  tiiat  I  am  used  to  it.  But 
another  part  of  her  owners  are  determined  she  shall 
make  ihc  voyage,  and  these  will  insist  that  every 
bolt,  and  knee,  and  plank,  and  screw,  and  lasi.ening  of 
every  kind,  that  may  secure  her  safety,  shall  be  sup- 
plied in  a  proper  manner.  And  il'  any  part  of  her 
tackel,  apparel  or  furni'ure  has  been  stolen  away  and 
secreted,  they  will  do  what  in  them  lies  to  get  it  back 
or  to  replace  it.  For  myself  1  had  rather  go  lo  ihe 
bottom  among  the  sharks,  than  have  on  me  the  guilt 
of  purloining  so  much  as  a  m-irlingspike  belonging  to 
the  g®od  sliip.  Why,  1  ask  should  we  omit  tins  para- 
gra|)h,  il  it  will,  or  may,  do  anything  toward  conduct- 
mg  the  Synod  to  the  end  we  have  in  view  ?  Mr. 
Barnes  does  not  say  that  it  states  what  is  untrue,  or 
that  it  is  unjust  to  state  it : — yet  we  are  urged  to 
drop  it.  We  are  to  be  kinder  to  Mr.  Barnes  than 
Mr.  B'lrnes  is  to  liimself.  Let  us  not  forget  that  a 
British  officer  has  s-iid  that  the  losing  ot' a  single 
screw  caused  the  defeat  at  New  Orleans.  And  are 
we  going  to  give  up  any  of  the  lastenings  of  our  ship  ? 
I  trust  nor. 

Dr.  Cathcart.  I  thought  we  were  sitting  here  as 
judges,  ami  not  p'eading  the  cause.  Let  us  first  have 
all  tlie  evidence  tiefore  us,  and  we  can  listen  lo  the 
pleadings  afterward. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  It  is  certainly  very  import- 
ant i.hat  in  tins  case  (a  case  tor  our  conducting  of 
which  we  are  lo  give  an  account  on  earth  as  well  aa 


•►        60  TRIAL   OF 

in  lieaven,)  ev«iry  one  should  be  satisfied,  if  possible. 
A  purl  ion  ol"  very  iniporl.juit  evidence  is  wiihlield 
from  ihe  Synod.  Mr.  Biunes  is  ptandins:  in  very  pe- 
culiar circnmstiincfs,  as  interested  in  liie  absent  evi- 
dence: and  so  is  Dr.  Juokin:  and  so  is  tlie  Synod. 

[Dr.  Junkin,  inierposnijf.  All  ihe  evidence  is  here, 
and  can  he  proved  lo  he  the  orij^inal  tesli.nony  pro- 
duced aiui  re  id  helbre  the  Presbytery.] 

That  may  iie  very  irue  :  vet  we  have  not  the  official 
evidence,  as  such,  from  the  Presbytery.  And  lliough 
we  m;iy  have  what,  some  may  deem  an  equivalent, 
yet  if  we  could  ^^et  tlie  evidence  tliruugh  ttie  re-rular 
channels,  it  woidd  certainly  be  far  better.  There 
then  could  be  no  possible  ground  of  complaint.  I 
make  this  remark  because  brother  Campbell  seems 
to  impeach  the  propriety  of  our  course  in  proceeding 
lo  trial  without  the  evidence  which  is  withheld. 
Here  we  are  in  a  dileauna,  we  are  waterlogged  on 
either  hand.  If  we  listen  to  the  arguments  ol" breth- 
ren it  will  be  impossible  for  the  Synod  to  go  on:  we 
must  enher  refer  the  case,  or  let  it  die.  Now,  in  the 
absence  of  the  regular  docnmeaiary  evidence,  even 
supposing  that.  Dr.  Junkin  can  get  that  whicli,  in  fact, 
is  equally  good,  yet  we  want  lo  put  matters  in  such  a 
position  that  we  may  be  able  to  shew  that  we  have 
done  every  thing  justly,  and  that  all  the  injustice  in 
the  case  lies  with  the  Presbytery.  One  ol  the  facts 
in  the  case  is,  that  Mr.  Barnes  did  not  object  to  the 
absence-  of  the  documents.  It  may  be  said  by  some 
that  had  they  been  produced,  the  efl'ect  would  have 
been  in  his  lavor : — if  so,  why  did  he  not  call  for 
them?  But,  by  his  silence,  he  says,  in  effect,  that 
he  does  not  ci'iiip^iin  of  the  absence  of  the  ollicial 
evideix'e  in  his  tri<il.  I  atn  astonished  tliat  a  lawyer 
should  say  that  making  such  a  record  is  taking  an 
advantage  cf  the  accused,  where  it  simply  states  a 
fact  in  the  fiisiory  ol  the  proceedings  of  this  Body. 
Supposhig  it  lobe  a  piece  ol  true  history,  because 
we  wish  10  do  justice  with  delicacy  and  with  kind- 
ness, we  wish  the  hisiory  of  the  st  p  in  our  proceed- 
ings lo  he  correctly  and  faithfully  recorded.  When 
Mr.  Eustace  had  bven  called  upon  and  had  explained, 
and  when  Mr.  UulRdd  and  he  wished  afterward  to 
speak,  we  arrested  their  statements.  This  1  regret- 
led  :  and  I  still  regret  it,  because.  1  think  they  might 
have  been  better  satisfied  had  they  beiii  ])ermitted 
to  proceed.  Yet  i "  broiher  Barnes  will  show  how 
the  entering  up  of  such  a  record  will  injure  him,  I 
may  be  niduced  to  examine  Ihe  question  again. 

Mr.  Landis.  U»es  not  Mr.  Breckinridge  by  Ihia 
minute  i  aend  to  prevent,  Mr.  Barnes  from  objecting 
'  lo  the  absence  of  this  evidence  hereaficr? 

Mr.  R.  Bki^civinkidge.  My  object  is  to  prevent 
hereafter  an  unlUir  advantage  from  being  taken  o| 
the  Synod. 


MR.   BARNES.  61 

Mr.  Barnes.  I  do  not,  by  my  pilence,  intenrl  to 
arimif.  the  regularity  o(  the  proceedinffs  oflhe  Synod. 
The  time  is  not  yet  come  for  me  to  object :  and  in  tlie 
meanwhile  I  hope  no  euch  construction  will  be  put 
upon  my  silence. 

The  question  being  now  taken  on  nlrikinsr  out  the 
minute  as  drawn  up  by  Mr.  li.  Breckinridge,  it  was 
lost. 

The  question  then   recurring  on  its  adoption,  Dr. 
M'Dowell  enquired  whether  the  Synod  was  not  mak- 
ing an  uncorrect  statement  when  they  .said  that  they 
had  the  proceeding.-^  in  the  case? 
Mr.  R.  Breckinkidge.    That  was  modified. 
The  minute  was  then  adopted. 
Moderator.    Synod  will  now  proceed  to  hear  such 
evidence  as  it  has  before  it. 

Dr.  CuYLER.  The  testimony  should  be  verified  as 
far  as  possible  before  it  is  read. 

Mr.  Gilbert  then  read  from  the  4th  chapter  of  the 
Book  ol  Discipline,  23d  section,  last  sub  section,  the 
following : — 

Chap.  iV.  Sec.  23.  "  In  recording  the  proceedings,  in  cases 
of  judi'-i.il  process,  the  reasons  for  all  decisions,  except  in 
questions  of  order,  shall  be  recorded  ai  length  :  that  the  record 
may  exhibit  every  ihiiig  which  had  an  influence  on  the  judg- 
ment of  the  court.  And  nothivs^  but  what  is  contaim  d  in,  Ike 
record  may  be  taken  into  consideration  in  reviewing  the  pro- 
ceedings in  a  superior  court." 

Is  not  this  something  be."5ide  "the  proceedings?" 
And  how  is  it  to  be  verified  7 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  Will  the  member  read 
also  ihe  reasons  given  in  the  final  section. 

Mr.  Gilbert.  The  section  declaies  that  nothinaj 
shall  he  adduced  in  ih*^  court  abiove  "'but  what  is 
contained  in  the  record"  of  the  court  below.  Is  tl'.e 
evidence, attempted  now  to  be  introduced,"  contained 
in  the  record"  »•  I  the  Pri  sbyiery  ?  How  can  we  tell, 
unless  ive  have  the  record,  or  c  certified  copy  of  it. 

Mr.  R.  BRECKiNHinGE.  We  have  proof  aliunde 
that  this  evidence  is  contained  in  the  record,  and 
would  be  Ibund  there  if  we  had  the  record.  What 
we  want  is,  that  the  Prosecutor  should  prove,  in  the 
best  way  he  can,  ihat  this  is  a  part  of  the  Preshyte- 
rial  Record.  Of  course  we  are  not  going  to  allow 
either  Mr.  Barnes  or  the  Presbytery  tb  take  advan- 
tage o(  their  own  wrong:  and  we  may  take  a  less 
degree  of  evidence  than  the  Clerk's  signnture  to 
prove  that  this  is  a  part  ol  the  recor''.  The  question 
is,  what  is  the  recor('  ? — We  cannot  get  the  Clerk's 
seal,  because  he  has  surreptitiously  withheld  it,  by 
order  of  his  Presbytery. 

Mr.  Gilbert.  The  question  is,  what  are  we  to  re- 
ceive as  authentic  testitnony  to  prove  the  record  of  a 
judicatory  ?  and  on  that  subject  we  have  our  rule,  in 


62  TRIAL   OF 

the  20tli  cliapter  o(  the  Form  o(  Church  Government. 
There  ihe  siijimturG  of  the  Moderator  or  Clerk  ia 
requirnil. 

"li  siiiill  be  the  duty  of  the  Clerk  besidi's  recording  the 
transactions,  lo  preserve  ilio  rccoids  carolully  :  and  to  yrant 
extracts  IVoin  thetn  wlicntvur  properly  reqinred  :  and  such 
extracts,  under  the  hand  of  the  clehk,  shall  be  contidercd 
as  a:iih':iiiic  ruuclicrs,  of  ihe  f.ict  whicii  ili.-y  deciarr,  in  any 
ecclesias'ical  judicatory,  and  to  every  part  of  the  church." 

MoDKKAiOK.  Can  we  decide  that  diis  evidence  ia 
not  auilieritic? 

JNIr.  GiLHUKi".  I  want  to  know  how  it  is  proved  to 
be  autlieiiiic  Tiie  Constitution  says  that  nothing 
shall  be  read  here  but  wh  it  is  a  part  of  the  reioru 
below.  And  how  are  we  to  know  that  this  is  so  but 
by  the  sij^ualurc  of  the  Clerk  ?  The  hook  s;-iys  that 
this  \'  tlic  nianner  in  wlii'h  docunicriis  are  tohc  ati- 
ihentirated.  In  the  Gth  idiapler  uT  the  Book  ol' Disci- 
pline, it  is  required  that  the  documents  produced 
fjhill  be  "  rcijularly  aniheniicdtvd  by  the  si;;aiiature 
of  the  Moderator  or  Clerk."  There  is  no  provision 
tor  the   rece[)tinn   of  any    other.     And    I  liere  in  my 

Elace,  as  one  of  tlie  judges  of  this  court,  object  to 
earing  any  other. 

Moderator.  I  do  not  say  wliat  these  papers  are, 
or  how  they  are  autheniicaied. 

Mr.  GiLBKUT.  Is  ii  not  admitted  that  they  are  not 
a  part  ot  the  record  ?  It  you  are  going  to  liave  any- 
tl  ing  read  wiiich  is  not  a  part  uf  the  record,  1  object 
to  i„. 

Mr.  VViNctiESTER.  Will  the  Moderntor  direct  hia 
attention  to  the  23d  section  of  the  4ih  Chapier.  Thia 
that  he  has  quoted  does  not  speak  about  appeals,  but 
only  ol'revi^ioM.  and  control.  If  we  were  proceeding 
by  w;-\y  of  revi^ian  and  control,  then  indeed  it  would 
be  true  that  we  could  oidy  hear  what  is  actually  a 
part  of  the  Record. 

Moderator.  This  whole  discussion  is  out  of 
order. 

Mr.  Gilbert.  What?  When  a  paper  is  oflered 
to  us  in  a  court  ol  criminal  jurisdiction,  to  be  read  in 
the  trial  of  an  accused  pitriy,  are  we  not  to  enquire 
how  the  paper  is  authenticated  ? 

MoDr.RATOi{.  Certaiidy  ;  vvhen  the  i)aper  is  offer- 
ed :  bui  tliif-  has  nor  been  ollercd  yet. 

Mr.  Hamner.  We  li  ive  already  resolved  lo  pro- 
ceed with  this  tri?il  without  the  identical  records  of 
the  Presbytery :  and  is  it  not  a  mere  trifliiifr  with 
our  time  thus  to  throw  obstacles  in  the  way  to  hinder 
the  body  from  doing  what  it  has  determined  lo  do  ? 
Is  not  this  the  time  to  receive  proof  respecting  thIa 
testimony  now  offered  ?  CJan  we  not  now  qualify  the 
witnesses  and  then  hear  them? 

Dr.  Green.    The   whole  of  Mr.  Gilbert's  speech 


MR.   BARNES.  6S 

has  been  directed  ni^ainst  that  which  has  already 
been  derided  on  l)y  the  Synod.  \Vc  have  already  de- 
termined ihai,  aa  tlie  recurd-:  are  wiliiheld  from  ug, 
we  will  [)rocfced  wiiliont,  ihein.  Synod,  1  trust,  are 
not  to  he  turned  aside  IVom  their  |)u^|)0^e. 

Mr.  Blytue.  ll'tiic  I3ooU  intended  that  we  t^hionld 
never  in  any  ease  receive  any  docunient.s  noi  iiuthen- 
ticated  i)y  liio  si^'nature  of  liie  Moclerator  or  Clerk 
of  11  judicatory  Mr.  Gilbert  would  he  correct.  But 
if  he  will  look  at  the  5tli  sub-section  ol  the  1st  section 
of  the  7th  Chapter  ol  the  Book  of  I)isci|;liiie  under 
the  head  of  '"  review  and  control"  he  will  find  the 
followirij?: 

".Iddicatories  may  someiimcs  entirely  neglect  to  pfrform 
their  duly  :  by  vvliich  heretical  opinions,  or  corrupt  practices, 
may  be  allowed  to  gain  ground;  or  offenders  of  a  very  gross 
character  may  be  siitiered  to  escape:  or  soine  circimstJUiGcs 
in  their  proceedings  of  very  great  irregularity,  ii  ly  not  bo 
distinctly  recorded  by  them.  In  any  of  wliich  ca.-es,  their 
records  will  by  no  meanj  ex'-ibit  to  the  judicatory  a  full  view 
of  their  proceedings.  If  iherefore  the.  sup;rior  judicatory  be 
well  advised,  by  common  fame,  that  sucli  neglects  or  irregu- 
lariiies  have  oi  cuired  on  the  part  of  the  inferior  judicatory, 
ii  is  incumbent  on  tlieni  to  take  cognizance  of  the  same  ;  and 
to  e.xaniine,  deliberat  ly,  and  judge  m  the  whole  matter,  aa 
completely  as  if  it  had  been  rec^rdtd,  and  thus  bruuglit  up  by 
the  review  of  the  records." 

Here  is  a  distinct  provision  for  the  hearing'  of  other 
testimony  than  the  records  of  the  lower  court,  i  ad- 
rait  that  were  there  no  such  ])rovision  as  this,  his 
objection  would  be  well  lounded. 

Mr.  Gilbi;rt.  1  know  there  is  such  a  passajre:  but 
it  does  nut.  refer  to  eases  ol'  appeal  and  complaint, 
but  only  to  cases  ol"  proceedings  by  review  and  con- 
trol. 

MouERATOR.  The  Moderator  ordains  that  the 
Clerk  do  no.v  read  the  documents. 

Mr.  GtLBEtrr.  What?  before  they  are  authenti- 
cated ? 

MouERATOR.    Yes. 

Mr.  Barnes.  I  wish  the  decision  of  the  Moderator 
may  he  recorded. 

Moderator.  The  papers  purportins:  to  be  copies 
of  the  evide.nce  may  now  be  presented. 

Mr.  Gii.BnRT.  If  the  Moderator  decides  that  these 
pa|)ers  are  to  be  rend  wiihout  beini^  authenticated,  I 
take  an  ai)pealfrom  the  decision. 

Dr.  Ju.NKiN.  1  have  oral  proof  by  which  they  may 
be  authetnicated. 

Mr.  II.  Breckinridge.    Let  the  proof  be  ^iven. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  The  paper  1  now  bold  in  my  hand  ia 
the  orij^inal  letter  sent  by  me  to  the  Presbytery  re- 
questing them  to  receive  my  charges  against  Mr. 
Barnes.  Mr.  Steele  saw  it  before  it  was  sent,  and 
was  good  enough  to  present  it  for  me,  to  the  Pres- 
bytery. 


64  TAIAL  OF 

Dr.  McDowell.    Let  this  be  certified  on  paper. 
Dr.  Ji:.\KiN.      My    witiiessses  to  authenticate  the 

gaper  at?  the  same  prL.^enled  to  Presbytery  are,  Mr. 
teeie   Dr.  Ely,  and  Mr.  Patterson. 

Dr.  Ely.    That  is  not  the  original  letter. 

Mr.  Patterson.  I  couici  not,  lor  my  lite,  testify  to 
this  p.iper.  I  do  not  even  know  whether  1  heard  it 
read,  or  not. 

Mr.  li.  IBRECKLVRinGE.  Let  it  be  read  then,  and 
Bee  it' they  will  not  then  testily. 

Mr.  fliVMNER.  Can  any  pa|)er  be  received  and  read 
here  unid  it  has  been  autlieniicKied  ? 

MoDCKATOR.  If.  is  in  Older  to  introduce  papers  and 
then  to  authenticate  them.  The  Moderator  feels 
that  this  is  a  case  of  peculiar  difRculiy.  TJie  proper 
papers  are  sup[)ressed.  The  Synod  will  judge 
whether  the  authentication  of  these  documents,  is  or 
is  not  PulHc  ient. 

Dr.  Culver.  I  move  that  Mr.  Steele  be  put  upon 
his  oath. 

The  Rev.  Robert  Steele  was  now  sworn. 

Q,iiPsiion  by  the  Moderator.  Have  you  read  this 
paper  ? 

Mr.  Steele.    I  have. 

MoaERA TOR.  Accordiiia:  to  the  best  of  your  knowl- 
edge, is  this  an  exact  copy  of  a  paper  presented  by 
you  to  the  2d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  Steele.  I  believe  it  to  be  u  irue  and  exact 
copy  of  tlie  paper  presented  through  my  hands  to  the 
(Assend^iy't.)  2d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia. 

Dr.  McDowell.  Is  not  Mr.  Barnes  to  interrogate 
the  wiuiess  if  lie  wishes  it? 

Moderator.  Yes.  Any  member  of  the  judicatory 
may  ask  him  questions. 

Mr.  De  Witt.     When  did  you  read  this  paper  ? 

Mr.  Steele.     I  have  read  it  at  various  times. 

Mr.  De  Witt.  How  long  is  it  since  you  last 
read  it  ? 

Mr.  Steele.  Since  I  came  into  the  house  this 
evening. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinrioge.  I  hope  it  will  be  recorded 
that  Mr.  Barnes  was  allowed  to  ask  any  questions 
he  thought  proper.     Ordered  that  it  be  so  recorded. 

Mr.  Gilbert.  Which  letter  was  it  that  passed 
through  your  ha55ds,  the  first  or  the  second  ?  I  un- 
derstand that  one  was  sent  and  afterwards  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  Steele.  I  have  no  recollection  of  being  the 
instrument  of  presenting  more  than  one  letter  con- 
taining chnrges.  I  received  it  by  mail,  and  ^'ave  it 
into  the  hands  of  thelbrmer  moderator  of  the  Pres- 
byi.ery, — Mr.  Scott  I  believe,  but  do  not  distinctly  re- 
member whether  it  was.he  or  not.    The  letter  was 


MR.    BARNES.  65 

directed  to  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Pliiladelphin. 
and  sent  under  cover  to  me.  Tliip  uap  dore  tj  save 
Dr.  Jiinkiii  llleti^leand  trouble  oC  a  journey  to  tiie 
city.  On  wliat  ijrecise  day  1  delivered  it  I  do  not  re- 
connect.   The  record  will  show. 

Mr.  Gilbert.  Was  thi.?  the  first,  or  the  .second 
letter  ?  His  answer,  however,  shows  it  was  the 
first. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  hope  we  phall  have  no 
trap.  It  does  not  appear  in  eviilence  that  there  were 
two  hirers  sent.     VVhen  was  the  letter  presented  ? 

Mr.  Steele.  1  cannot  leli,  without  rele/rin<f  to 
private  letters  which  I  liave  at  home. 

Ur.  JuNKi.N.  I  can  show  that,  I'rom  tiie  certificate 
of  the  Clerk  of  Presbytery. 

Mr.  Ca.mpb;:ll.  Do  you  know  that  this  is  the  let- 
ter, which  roiitains  the  identical  ctiarges  on  which 
the  Pre-bytery  actitl  ? 

Mr.  Steele.     I  believe  it  to  be  the  same  letter. 

Mr.  II.  Breckinbiuge.  I  move  you  the  following 
Rcsolulion  : 

Resolved,  Thai  the  letter  be  now  read,  it  being  in  the 
judgment  of  Synod  the  same  as  a  part  of  the  record  of  the 
Presbyt.  ry. 

Dr.  .TuNKiN.  I  received  a  letter  from  the  Clerk  of 
the  Presbytery  which  refers  to  this  same  letter.  [This 
letter  was  then  read.] 

Mr.  H.\.mner.  (,To  Mr.  Steele)  Did  yon  read 
the  letier  (the  letter  of  Dr.  Juid<in  to  tiw  2d  Presby- 
tery) before  you  harded  i'  in  to  the  Presbytery  ? 

Mr.  S'lEELE.    Yes:  I  did. 

Mr.  R.  Breciviniudge.  Let  it  be  rut  on  the  files  of 
the  Synod  ami  eiilered  in  the  tninutos.  I  move  you 
that  it  be  read,  as  .sutticieutly  autiientirHred. 

Mr.  Hamner.  It  was  said  by  Dr.  Junkiii  that  he 
had  more  witnesses  than  one.  Ou!i:hi  the  oihers  not 
now  to  be  e.xainined  ?  That  oui  of  tiie  niouitis  ol'two 
or  more  wii  nes.ses  everv  word  may  be  esiHlili  hed? 

MoDERAroR.  The  o;iih  ol  a  broiher  in  the  Ministry 
is  as  stron-?  jjroof  as  lh<?  certificate  oi  the  CItrk  of  A 
Judic  itory. 

Mr.  Campbell.  In  theGih  section  of  lhe6ih  Chap» 
ter  of  our  Book  of  Discipline,  it  is  declared  as  fol- 
lows:— ■'  The  testimony  of  njore  than  one  witness  is 
necessiiry  in  order  to  est.ibli.-li  any  char^je." 

The  qieslion  wa:^  now  jhU,  and  it  was  resolved 
that  the  Letter  of  Dr.  Junkin  to  ihe  Presbytery  shall 
be  real. 

Mr.  Barnes.  As  the  ileci^ion  of  the  synod  is  very 
important  lo  my  interests,  1  may  lie  rclucaiiiiy  com- 
pelled to  lake  up  a  few  momentci  of  your  limt  ij  of- 
t'ering  some  ihmgs  in  relerence  to  it.  I  have  in  rty 
hand  a  paper  whicli  1  wit-h  to  present  to  the  synod : 
6 


€6  TRIAL   OF 

but  before  doing  so,  there  are  a  few  observations 
which  I  would  otfer  by  way  of  preface,  supposinsr  that 
this  13  the  i(ro|)er  place  to  iriirodoce  Ihcii).  1  have 
been  wailing  wit  i  coiilidcnre  for  llic  arrival  of  ihe 
precise  point  ol  time  in  which  it  will  be  proper  to  lay 
m  my  plea,  and  I  presume  that  the  time  has  now  ar- 
rived. 

When  asked  by  the  moderator  whether  I  was 
ready  fur  trial,  I  staled  that  I  had  made  all  thepre- 
paraiioa  which  my  lime  would  admit,  ai'd  ihal  so  far 
as  1  was  personally  concerned.  1  was  ready.  Itvvill 
be  remembered  that  I  was  j^iiarded  in  my  expressions; 
and  1  was  eniirely  sincere  in  them.  It  must,  however, 
be  mani;esl  that  when  |,rofessins  niyself  ready  for 
trial,  I  meant  a  trial  conducted  in  the  conslitu'.ional 
way  :  but  it  ijs  the  privile{?e  ol  an  accused  party  to 
enter  his  protest  at  any  slajre  ol  thr,  proceedings. 
This  business  came  to  my  knowledj^e  in  March  last: 
and  it  was  then  understood  that  it  was  to  go  up  in  the 
May  following  to  the  General  Assendily  at  Pitts- 
burgh. Tiie  (jueslion  wiih  me  was  wheilier  I  should 
consent  to  its  going  there  at  that  time,  or  whether  it 
would  not  be  belter  to  let  the  thing  pursue  its  regular 
course,  ll  was  very  doubtful  wheiher  ihcre  would 
then  be  sullicit^nt  time  for  me  to  prepare  ibr  what 
must  necessarily  aifect  so  vitally  my  individual  cha- 
racter, the  congregation  to  which  1  minister,  and  the 
cause  of  truth  in  general.  The  presbytery  decided 
that  the  case  sliould  he  postponed  until  its  meeting  in 
June  :  and  at  that  timi-  it  came  up  in  a  regular  way. 
The  most  entire  cordiality  prevailed  between  Dr. 
Junldn  and  myself,  froi>>  the  beginning  ol  the  trial  to 
the  end  of  it.  The  proceeding  occupied  lour  or  fivo 
days.  The  documents  read  and  the  speeches  made 
were  both  of  great  length.  When  it  was  lit:ishcd,  I 
hoped  that  the  whole  matter  might  rest  there.     Tiie 

Eresbylery  acquitted  me,  honorably  :  and  1, of  course, 
ad  no  iiuention  to  apijeal.  But  the  question  occur- 
red to  my  mind  whether  there  were  not  somecxpres- 
eions  in  my  little  work  on  the  Romans,  which  gave 
unnecessary  olfence  to  the  fathers  ol  the  church,  and 
which  mijfht  be,  and  ought  to  be  corrected.  B;it,  aa 
it  might  be  said,  if  I  made  ihese  corrections,  that  1 
had  been  driven  to  do  so  by  tear  of  the  trial,  and  as, 
besides,  the  trial  itself  would  direct  nie  with  more 
certainty  lo  the  parts  of  the  book  which  were  most 
objected  to,  I  concluded  not  to  make  them  until  alter 
the  trial  should  have  been  over.  Accordingly,  I  sat 
down,  immediately  after,  and  made  a  number  of  cor- 
rections, wiiere  the  language  was  in  itseli  ambiguous, 
and  had  been  ereaily  misumieretood.  Some  of  these 
expressions,  however,  had  given  otience  as  not  heinff 
in  strict  accordance  with  the  Conlession  ol  Faith: 
and  one,  in  puriicuiar,  in  which  1  was  understood  as 


MR.   BARNES.  67 

denyinw  that  we  sinned  in  Adam  and  lell  with  him  in 
his  lirst  transirression.  1  iiavc  alU'.red  nmtiy  of  these 
passa^i-s  in  the  siereoiyptf:,  from  vvliicii  a  lourth  edi- 
tion of  (he  hook  will  shortly  be  |)ri(iieJ.  I  procured 
from  ttu;  piihli.shers,  proofshfeis  ol'ihuse  parts  ol'the 
work,  and  bronchi  iheni  with  me  to  this  place,  not 
doubt inij  that  the  whole  book  would  come  up  lor  ex- 
nmitiaii>ri  in  the  course  ol"  the  trial.  I  was  desirous 
the  book  should  fro  before  so  iar^e  a  synod  fur  exam- 
ination, be.-ause  1  hada  secret  hope  that  I  should 
be  able  to  saiisly  my  lathers  and  brethren  ;  that  iTin 
any  unguarded  expressions  I  had  unconsciously  pre- 
eenteil  a  meaning  diflert  tit  from  vviiat  1  had  meant  to 
express,  I  was  not  disposetl  tenaciously  to  insist 
upon  retaining  them.  And  I  do  now  believe  that  if 
this  trial  had  proceeded  in  a  reirular  manner,  1  could 
have  been  content  to  let  the  matter  die  h(.'re  :  for  I 
had  formed  the  purpose  not  tu  appeal  fr.)ni  your  deci- 
sion,unb.'ss  a  course  should  have  been  pursued  which 
I  (leeitH'.d  unjust  in  itsell  and  injurious  to  me.  When 
I  came  to  this  place  it  was  in  the  full  i;xpectation  that 
the  cause  would  come  on.  I  hat!  not  heard  any  thing 
of  a  purpose  lo  arrest  its  progress  by  withholding  the 

Eresbyterial  documents.  iSuch  a  thing  had  never 
een  uitimated  to  me,  nor  had  I  once  thought  of  it. 
Yet  I  do  not  say  that  were  the  case  tliat  ol  another, 
and  not  my  ovvn,  1  sliould  not  have  jjone  with  my 
presbytery.  I  have  no  doubt  whatever,  that  they  are 
perfectly  conscientious  in  what  they  have  done.  But 
it  was  a  matter  in  which  I  look  no  part.  I  neither 
advocated  the  measure,  nor  did  I  vote  on  either  side. 
My  brethren  have -acted  according  to  their  viewolthe 
case,  and  liave  acted  conscienciously.  It  is  highly 
nrobd)ie  that,  had  1  been  similarly  situated,  I  shoula 
have  done  the  same.  The  question  I  have  now  to 
decide  is  wheiher  justice  can  be  done  lo  this  whole 
business  by  my  standing  here  and  making  my  defence 
in  a  way  that  appears  to  nie  altogether  illegal  and 
again.-3t  the  constitution  ot  our  church  ?  Is  it  proper 
that  [  should  proceed  and  go  over  all  the  documents 
connected  with  the  trial,  when  an  essential  leature 
in  the  process  is  wanting,  ami  must  so  appear,  to  any 
court  in  the  world?  I  am  not  afraid  of  atrial.  I 
have  been  always  willing  to  be  tried,  cither  before 
the  General  Assembly,  or  before  any  presbv  tery  yoa 
can  form  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  II  you  order  the 
matter  to  he  taken  up  de  novo,  1  will  explain  every 
thing  fully  and  honestly,  with  ii  deep  sense  of  my  re- 
eponsibility  as  a  presbyterian  minister.  I  have  no 
thought  of  disclaiming  that  responsibility.  I  say, 
here,  that  at  m,y  ordination  I  received  the  Confession 
ol  Faith  and  Form  of  Church  Government  as  my 
rule,  and  to  continue  lo  be  my  rule,  so  long  as  I  con- 
tinue to  be  a  presbyterian.    I  am  willing  to  submit  to 


68  TRIAL   OF 

the  judjfment  of  my  co-presby!ers  :  and  no  man  can 
lay  Ilia  Silver  on  a  single  point  of  lime  durinsr  all  the 
•tru^ijles  ot  ilie  last  five  years  when  I  called  in  ques- 
tion the  right  ul' synod  or  |)re^byle^y  to  try  me  or  my 
writings  in  a  proper  and  a  regular  nianiier.  But  in 
tiiis  case  the  records  are  not  in  the  Hou>e,  and  the 
constitution  is  explicit  in  rociuiring  them  to  be  pro- 
duced and  re  id.  Its  language  is,  "  In  faking  up  an 
appeal,  after  ascertaining  tliat  the  appellant  on  hie 
part  has  conducted  it  regularly,  tliejffra^  step  shall  be 
to  read  the  sentence  appealed  from:  secondly  loread 
the  reasons  which  were  assigned  by  the  appellant  lor 
his  appeal,  and  which  are  on  record  :  thirdly  to  read 
THE  WHOLE  KtcoRD  of  llic  proceecliiis^s  of  the  inferior 
judicatory  in  the  case,  including  all  the  testimony, 
and  the  reasons  of  their  decision."  Yet  tlie  sjnocl 
has  decided  to  proceed  in  the  trial  without  this  re- 
cord. But,  supposing  the  first  step  should  be  want- 
ing, and  I  lie  svnod  had  no  copy  of  the  sentence  ap- 
pealed from,  could  the  trial  proceed  ?  Or  sup.-ose 
the  second  step  is  in  liUc  manner  deficient,  would  it 
be  right  to  proceed  ?  And  can  it  be  right  to  adjudi- 
cate on  a  question  involving  the  character,  opinions, 
and  ecclesiastical  standing,  the  rank  and  intluence, 
and  usefulness  of  a  chr'stian  minister,  without  liie 
record  of  the  proceedings  in  the  court  appealed  I'rom, 
when  the  voice  of  the  whole  Presbyterian  cliurch  has 
said  tiiat  that  record  sliall  be  present  and  shall  be 
read  and  considered  ?  As  to  what  autheniic  records 
are  r.one  can  doubt.  The  coiisiitution  has  said  that 
they  must  be  record?  certified  by  the  moderator  or 
clerk  of  the  judicatory  whose  records  they  are.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  hint  about  a  record's  beini?  authen- 
ticated by  oral  testimony.  The  idea  is  wholly  new. 
There  is  no  authority  which  will  allow  a  court  to  take 
one  half  of  a  record,  or  less,  and  decide  upon  that  as 
if  thtJty  had  the  whole,  and  on  such  grounds  to  jeopard 
the  liappiness,  and  character,  the  pe.ace  and  useful- 
ness of  a  brother  in  the  ministry.  I  therefore  pre- 
sume that  the  records  of  the  court  below  form  a  ma- 
terial link  in  the  chain  of  orderly  proceeding,  and  are 
not  to  be  dispensed  with.  You  Siiy  that  by  t  leir  ab- 
aence  tiie  cause  oft  he  appellee  will  not  he  jeoparded  j 
but  is  tiiis  presumed  ?  or  is  it  not  rather  in  all  cases 
to  be  presumed  that  the  records  of  the  court  below 
are  material  to  his  cause?  I  believe  such  of  my  fa- 
thers here  present  as  have  stu<lied  the  laws  of  the 
land  will  all  agree  that  no  cause  can  be  taken  up  by 
appfal  in  any  court  on  earth,  where  the  record  ofthe 
trial  in  the  court  below  is  wanting. 

These  views  operate  with  J^irce  on  my  mind.  I 
earnestly  desire  to  speak  to  my  fathers  and  brethren 
in  my  own  defence.  1  prejjared  myself,  as  well  as  I 
could,  to  do  so :  and  I  have  exhausted  my  stren^tJi  ift 


MR.    BARNES.  69 

doinf^  it;  but  in  the  existing  state  of  things  I  cannot 
consent  that  the  trial  should  go  Cor  ward.  I  consider 
it  as  due  lo  uiyj^oHand  to  the  cause  of  truth  to  object 
to  it.  An<l  should  the  cause  proceed  notwiihstanding, 
I  shall  present  the  whole  case  to  the  Genera]  Assem- 
bly I'.y  an  a))peal.  I  know  you  have  the  power  to  go 
on  and  isfiue  the  appeal.  I  do  not  doubt  your  author- 
ity. I  have  riiver  spoken  in  your  presence  a  disre- 
epectlid  word,  nor  shall  I  ever  speak  one.  I  earnestly 
desire  an  end  to  these  long  protracted  difficidtiea. 

The  alterations  I  have  made  in  my  hook  are  con- 
tained in  liiis  volume.  Whether  they  may  influence 
the  synod  to  adopt  a  diflerent  course  is  not  for  nie  to 
eay  :  but  all  that  a  man  can  do,  when  he  finds  that 
the  expressions  he  has  used  are  ambiguous,  is  to 
m.ike  them  plainer.  I  do  not  say  that  I  have  aban 
doncd  any  of  my  sentiments.  But  I  wish  now  to  pre- 
sent :o  synod  this  paper. 

p-  Here  Mr.  Barnes  laid  the  following  on  the  table  of 
synod. 

"  When  I  was  asked  by  the  moderator  of  the  synod  this 
morning,  whether  I  was  prepared  for  iriai,  I  staled  that  before 
and  since  tlie  trial  befoic  the  presbytery,  I  had  made  all  the 
preparations  which  my  lime  would  permit,  and  that  so  far  as 
1  am  personally  coneerned,  I  was  prepared  for  trial.  I  will 
say  thai  in  the  same!  sense-  I  am  now  re  :dy.  I  did  not,  how- 
ever, intend  that  I  was  ready  to  siibm.t  to  an  unconstitutional 
trial.  In  the  present  state  of  artairs,  I  feci  bound  to  inform 
the  synod,  ihul  if  an  attested  record  of  the  proceeeings  in  my 
case  cannot  be  produced,  I  must  decline  all  further  proceed- 
ings before  the  synud  in  the  case,  my  presbytery  having 
judgtd  ihatii  is  tuir  co  isiiiutional  right  to  withhold  the  re- 
cord. And  the  iriul,  il  it  irjceed,  whatever  iMis^ht  be  ihoissue, 
whether  in  my  viiidicaiion  ore  mdemnation,  it  must  be  an  un- 
consiiiulionul  one.  Boon  of  Disr.iplme.  sect.  iii.  sub.  8.  chap, 
iv.  sub.  sec.  23.  Form  of  Govt.  chap.  T2.  Such  a  trial! 
hereby  respecifully  decline.  I  feci  however  desirous  of  a  coq- 
stiluiional  trial  of  the  charges  alleged  against  me,  whenever 
the  same  can  be  legally  had  before  ih^- proper  tribunal."' 

Si'Mied  Albert  Baenes. 

York,  October  30.'/i,  13j5. 

Mr.  tl.  BitLCKiNiiiDGi;.  I  move  you  that  this  paper 
be  rtceived  aiul  recorded  in  our  minutes.    Agreed  to. 

Mr.  Breckiiiridiie  then  proceeded.  There  are  three 
things  which  we  can  do  in  the  present  contingency. 
Oiie'^is  lo  proceed  no  larther,  but  reler  the  case,  or 
let  il  die.  Oae  other  iWnvj:  we  can  do  is  to  proceed 
just  as  if  the  pirty  accused  were  present  and  dejend- 
ing  himself,  i'his  is  provided  lor  in  our  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline. Anollier  course  we  may  adu|)t  is  to  proceed 
aganist  the  Presbyierv  f  i  contumacy.  Tliis  also 
is  laid  down  in  the  Book,  And  there  is  yet  anotheJ: 
we  may  here,  now,  on  the  spot,  dissolve  the  Predby- 
tery,  and  order  them  to  deliver  up  their  books  lo  the 
Synod:  and  il  thty  rel'use  we  may  forthwith  cut  them 
6* 


'fO  TRIAL   OF 

o(i  Iroiii  the  Presbyierinn  church.  Sir,  T  have  no 
iih'  1  ••'  »  ii'ir  t)rowbecii<jii  hy  men  wlio  act  in  viola- 
lion  of  the  oonsiitiirioii  ol  our  church,  and  then  |)lead 
ihcir  own  wioii;r ;  iiiid  ihui  in  a  dt^gree  in  which  an 
uneonvcrted  iinn  would  blush  to  do. 

[Hi're  c'li  elder,  in  a  di.siniii  part  of  the  assemlily, 
loudly  called  Mr.  UrecKinrid^'e  lo  order,  declaring 
that  dsurli  lan^'uaire  wa»  perniilted  he  would  go  out 
of  llie  liouse.  and  was!)  hit^  hands  of  the  Synod  and 
all  its  dnings:  and  he  accordiniriy  withdiew,  under 
etron^  exciieinent.  Some  contusion  was  occasioned 
by  tins  inovemcnt.  Tlif  inndi!raior  called  to  order  ; 
and  it  w.is  some  time  heiore  the  House  was  suffi- 
ciently con)pi)sed  lor  Mr.  B.  to  uroceed.] 

I  woulil  put  on  record  as  you  have  done  that  the 
Presbytery  have  aceil  unjusiiy,  uncandidly,  and  in  a 
manner  grossl>  diiorJerly.  which  Ironi  my  heart  and 
soul  i  l)elieve, — and  1  am  i '(pared,  now,  at  once,  to 
cut  oil  the  Presi)yiery.  Here  are  lour  courses  we 
may  adopt.  We  n)ay  dissolve  the  Presbytery,  and 
if  they  refuse  to  fiive  us  up  their  books,  we  can  cut 
them  oH :  or  we  may  proceed  against  ilieni  fur  contu- 
macy :  or  we  may  drop  (lie  whole  business.  I  am 
ready  for  eiiher  ol  these  c  urses,  if  peace  and  right- 
eousness require  it  at  our  liatids.  1  repeat  ii — I  am 
ready  lo  cut  oil  the  Presbyiery  ai  once.  1  renounce 
them.  I  disclaim  then),  i  disclaim  them,  not  merely 
ns  ministers  arid  as  brethren,  but  1  disclaim  them  as 
men. 

Dk.  JirwKiN.  The  appellant  has  some  ri'.'hts  here, 
and  I  presume  that  these  are  cliicHy  lo  be  rc^prdeu 
I  will  reaii  ilie  rule  laid  down  in  our  Book  ot'  Disci- 
pline, chap.  9,  sec.  6. 

'  Ol  New  I  tsiiiiiony.'  "Cases  may  arise,  however,  in 
wliicli  ihe  judiciary  appealed  hum,  and  the  appellant,  may 
contur  in  r;  qufsniig  the  superior  juciieatury  to  takf  up  and 
issue  the  .■  pi"  al,  vviih  the  addiional  light  which  the  new  evi- 
dence may  nffird.  In  this  case,  and  especially  it  very  seri- 
ous injury  is  likely  to  happ-n,  eiiiier  to  the  appellaiii,  or  to 
the  church,  ly  the  dehiy  which  a  new  trial  would  occasion, 
the  superi  ir  jiidiratory  may  proceed  to  hear  the  nf^w  testimo- 
ny, and  to  issue  the  apjiea',  with  ihe  aid  ol  the  additional  light 
wliich  thai  ictetimony  u.uy  affard." 

The  oidy  bcarir.fi:  of  this  ciiaptcr  'on  New  Testi- 
mony' upon  il'e  present  case  is  created  by  the  conduct 
oJ  the  Asscmlily's  2d  Presbytery.  Tlieir  course  in 
wiihholdiiii:  the  records  h.is  retidered  it  necessary  lo 
authenticate  iliese  documents.  Under  these  circum- 
stances the  plain  cour.-e  lor  the  Synod  is  (o  yo  on 
and  issue  the  case  t»elure  ii.  All  the  testimony  is 
here.  There  is  none  lackinir.  The  whole  tes' iinony 
I  adduce  is  Mr.  Barnes'  own  language. :  thai  is  all  I 
plead  :  that  is  all  you  want  :  and  this  can  be  read  out 
of  his  book.     When  that  book  is  read  you  have  al 


Mil.    BARNES.  71 

ihe  lestimony  in  the  case.  I  cannot  see  how  your 
proceeding  without  these  records  ciui  work  Uie  least 
possible  injustice  to  :lie  party  accused.  You  have 
his  own  words  :  and  what  more  do  you  need  ?  Thi 
next  step,  therelore,  is  to  show  that  this  is  the  earrte 

f)aper  which  was  read  bel'ore  the  Presbytery,  it  is 
iterally  the  same  identical  piece  ol  paper  wliich  I 
used  bel'ire  the  court  below. 

Moderator.  It  should  first  be  decided  whether 
the  paper  oti'ered  by  Mr.  Barnes  constitutes  a  bar 
to  our  farther  proceeding  in  tlie  case. 

Dr.  CiJYLiiJR.  I  deeply  regret  I  lie  necessity  which 
induces  nie  to  make  the  motion  1  am  about  to  oH'er. 
There  is  a  proverb  among  the  JSpaniards  ol  which  I 
am  forcibly  reminded  by  Mr.  Barnes'  present  situa- 
tion: "  Save  melrom  my  friends,  and  1  will  take  care 
of  my  enemies."  1  yould  have  wished  that  the  whole 
case  had  taken  a  ditlerenl  attitude  from  the  begin- 
ning. But,  notwithstanding  these  regrets,  and  what- 
ever our  personal  feelings  may  be,  we  have  a  Juty  to 
perform:  and  we  are  not  to  be  arrested  or  thwarted 
in  renderi.ig  righteous  judgment  in  the  premises.  I 
move  you  that  Jie  Synod  now  proceed  with  the  trial. 

MaoERATOR.  There  i.s  no  need  oi"  a  motion  to  that 
eft'ect,  provided  the  paper  put  in  by  Mr.  Barnes  is  not 
a  bar  to  our  farther  proceedings. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  If  we  adopT  the  motion  that  will 
prove  that  it  is  no  bar. 

Mr.  Wynkoop.  The  best  way  for  us  to  pursue  is, 
first  to  make  an  extreme  elfort  to  obtain  the  records 
and  testimony  from  the  Presbytery.  1  move  you  to 
BUSjjend  the  course  of  the  trial  for  the  i)urpose  of 
taking  up  and  considering  the  following  resolution. 

Resolved,  That  the  Assembly's  2d  Presbyiery  be,  and  the 
same  hereby  is  dissolved :  and  that  tlie  staled  clerk  of  the 
same  be  required  torihwith  to  lay  the  records  of  that  Presby- 
tery on  the  table  of  the  Synod. 

Moderator.  Is  the  motion  of  Dr.  Cuyler  seconded  ? 

Tlie  motion  being  seconded, 

The  moderator  pronounced  the  motion  to  postpone 
to  be  in  order:  and  the  question  being  now  on  post- 
ponement, 

Dr.  Cuyler.  I  as  deeply  regret  the  motion  now 
submitted,  as  I  did  the  neces.^ity  lo  present  my  own. 
I  do  not  yet  believe  that  we  are  arrived  at  the  ex- 
treme point  to  vvliich  that  motion  refers.  I  would 
first  try  every  thing  in  our  power  to  issue  this  case 
on  its  merits :  but  I  am  ready  at  the  proper  time  to 
adopt  the  measure  now  proposed,  should  every  other 
course  fail  us.  To  adopt  it  m  the  present  state  ol  the 
business  would  throw  this  assembly  into  great  agita- 
tionn;  or  do  I  believe  that  we  are  at  present  in  a  state 
of  mind  to  judge  with  calmness  on  the  expediency  of 
Buch  a  course.    1  could  wish  it  let  alone.    1  could 


72  TRIAL   OF 

wish  every  thing  let  alone  which  wouKI  be  done  in 
haste,  and  es|)ecially  with  feelinj^s  which  may  here- 
rJ'ier  cost  us  regret.  1  hope  die  motion  will  nwt  be 
prc!?5?ed. 

Mr.  VV'ynkoop.  I  will  not  persist  in  urging  the 
mea.?ure :  hut  let  me  explain  why  1  introduced  the 
motion.  My  only  design  was  to  get  the  records  which 
are  withheld  from  us.  I  proposed  the  dissolution  of 
the  Preshytery  only  as  a  means  to  that  end.  I  still 
hope  we  shall  ohtam  ihem.  I  liope  we  shall  io  far- 
ther in  demaiRJing  ihcni — and  1  am  prepared  to  go 
on  and  cut  iIk'  IVesloyiery  oll'ifthey  refuse  to  deliver 
them.     1  withdraw  tjie  resolution  I  offered. 

MoDEHATOH.  Tlic  question  now  is  on  Dr.  Cuyler'fl 
motion  thnt  i^ynod  proceed  in  issuing  this  appeal. 
Are  you  ready  for  that  motion  ? 

Dr.  McDowell.  i\ot  yet.  I  presume  the  trial 
will  proceed  as  oi  course,  unless  our  course  is  arrest- 
ed. 

Dr.  CuYLER.  Let  me  explain.  The  Moderator 
desired  lo  know  what  was  to  be  done,  and  whether 
the  paper  jnil  in  hy  Mr.  Barnes  was  a  bar  to  our  lar- 
ther  [  rocecdiiigs.  1  made  my  motion  with  a  view  to 
obviate  all  doubt,  and  as  declarative  of  our  determi- 
nation to  proceed. 

Dr.  McDowell.  I  am  not  prepared  to  oppose  the 
motion.  My  original  wish  was  to  have  the  whole 
case  referred  at  once  to  the  Assembly,  because  1  be- 
lieved that  ii  would  be  as  speedy  u  way  of  disposing 
of  it  as  to  decide  It  here.  1  thought  wc  should  ap- 
pear better  before  the  Asseujbly,  by  adopting  such  a 
cour.?e.  But  1  do  not  oli'er  that  moiion  now.  We 
are  under  great  excitement:  and  in  such  a  solemn 
business,  att'.cting  so  deeply  the  standing  of  a  bro- 
ther who  has  certainly  treated  iliis  Synod  witfi  great 
decorum  and  respect,  I  think  it  will  be  better  that  wc 
do  nothing  to-nighl  :  nor,  indeed,  that  we  do  any 
thing  at  any  time  while  we  remain  in  our  present 
Biate  ol  t'eeling.  1  wis.'i  firllier  ti;ne  to  consult  and 
ascertain  whether  we  cannot  yet  fail  upon  some  plan 
to  relieve  us. 

Dr.  Catucart  here  moved  an  adjournment. 

Dr.  Cuyle;{.  I  am  not  conscious  of  being  under 
any  excitement:  but  if  the  Synod  resolve  lo  adjourn, 
after  such  a  course  of  remark,  it  would  be  best,  be- 
fore they  do  so,  to  ai>|)oint  a  connnittee  lo  consider 
and  report  on  the  proper  course  to  be  jjursned. 

Dr.CATHCART  withdrew  his  inoion  to  adjourn. 

Dr.  McDowell.  1  move  you  the  appointment  of  a 
committee. 

Moderator.  You  must  first  postpone  the  trial, 
then. 

Dr.  McDowell.  A  motion  to  commit  is  certairily 
Id  order. 


MR.   BARNE9.  73 

Mr.  McCalla.  There  arc  isumc  men  who  appear 
not  to  be  suHiciently  arqLi.iiiileJ  witli  human  nature 
to  give  us  at  all  timet;  ^oocl  advice.  What  conceiva- 
ble neud  can  there  t)e  ol  putiiui?  oti'thi.s  bu>irie>s  utitil 
to-morrow  ?  iShall  we  by  that  nifaiis  eet  cle  ir  of 
the  excitement  which  seems  to  alarm  tiie  go.)d  bro- 
ther ?  For  my  part,  I  have  been  iookinjj  about  in  all 
directions  to  see  the  excitement  he  talks  about,  but  I 
can  see  none.  Every  body  around  me  Hcems  to  be 
very  composed — entirely  iii  their  rig;ht  mind.  Mode- 
rator, it  puts  me  in  miad  ol' tiie  case  urtlie  ladv  on 
wJiom  her  Iriends  resolved  to  m  ike  a  medical  experi- 
ment. Every  one  that  met  her  told  her  she  was  very 
ill,  and  y.dvised  her  to  go  home  instantly,  an  i  e  nd 
for  a  physician;  and  tlie  tale  was  so  often  re|)eaied, 
that  at  length  it  became  true,  and  the  lady  took  to 
her  bed  iti  ijood  enrnest.  It  was  ))erfecily  natural. 
Let  a  man  tell  you  that  he  will  not  talk  witiiyou  now, 
you  are  too  aiiirry  :  is  there  any  thiiisi  in  the  world 
more  exciting^  So  an  assembly  may  be  warned 
against  excitement,  until  they  become  i  erfecily  luri- 
ous.  And  besides:  if  you  do  pui,  the  business  off,  will 
you  in  that  way  get  rid  of  exciieiuent '?  Not  at  all. 
You  are  quite  as  likely  to  increase  it. 

Moderator.  I  am  opposed  to  all  such  remarks  as 
rpHp.ct  upon  the  Synod.  To  say  that  this  body  is  not 
in  a  state  of  mind"  to  act  on  tlie  bu.-incas  b.-(ore  it,  is 
libellous  :  ihe  Synod  is  al  le  and  ready  to  act. 

A*!^.  Ca3sat.  1  hope  th.-re  will  be  no  premature 
r  CO  nmitment  ofoursel  e-.  Dr.  McDo  a  en  seems  to 
ihmk  tual  tae  liouse  is  uiid-r  such  a  vi(deni  slate  of 
excitement,  thai  we  need  both  to  sleep  and  to  pray, 
before  we  are  tit.  to  do  business.  Now,  to  pray,  1  ad- 
mit, is  pro|)er  at  all  times:  i>ut  1  leel  no  such  excite- 
ment as  demands  sleep  to  allay  it.  1  hive  lived  loiig,^ 
and  been  conversant  for  manv  years  with  business  of 
both  a  civil  and  ecclesidsticaT  kind,  and  the  result  of 
my  experience  and  observation  is  this:  th.it  the  best 
way  to  get  out  of  a  dilficulty,  is  to  iio  strait  forward. 
Sh.-ill  the  paper  which  Mr.  Barnes  has  put  in  arrest 
us  in  our  course?  The  book  provides  for  such  a 
case  :  and  I,  for  one,  am  in  no  wise  afraid  to  pi  oceed. 
I  believe  that  honesty  is  aUvays  the  br;si  policy.  This 
thing  of  stopping,  and  pausing,  and  loi)litiir  rmndfor 
a  way  to  get  out  of  dilticulties,  is  one  of  the  bi  st  ex- 
pedients to  get  farther  into  them.  Let  the  world  see 
you  are  honest  and  resolute,  and  it  will  do  more  for 
you  than  all  the  consultation  and  hesitation  you  can 
adopt. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  While  I  have  been  inclined 
to  think  that  the  excitement  my  b.-other  speaks  about 
is  not  all  that  it  is  fancied  to  be,  yet  theie  is  certain- 
ly some  reason  for  believing  that  much  e.xciteuieat 


74  TRIAL    OF 

does  rxist.  From  the  sounds  wp.  lately  heard  in  this 
^lace,  Kjunds  vvhi<h  seemed  to  alieniale  between 
ierocity  and  denpnir,  (Vom  ihe  sudden  rut^hin^  out  of 
one  of  our  hiy  brethren,  and  ilie  sympathy  in  his  leel- 
inujs  which  anpi^ared  in  somi^  oilier  parit  ol  tiie  as- 
sembly, tluTe  is  cerlainly  ground  for  such  a  bchef. 
Yet,  perhaps,  it  is  best  ihai  we  should  be  brought 
loarii.sis,  l)y  the  very  inlerestim;,  solenm,  firm,  yet 
I  must  ihinii  erroneous,  dorument  whirh  has  been 
laid  ticl')re  us  by  our  brother  Barnes,  'i'iii^t  paper,  I 
Bay,  has  brought  us  lo  a  crisis.  Yet,  I  must  say, 
thai  I  never  saw  a  more  calm,  sell-possessed,  or  dig- 
niheii  deportment  in  any  individual,  than  the  accused 
party  has  exhibited  belure  us  this  night.  Slill,  we 
are  brought  to  a  crisis:  and  1  confess  myself  to  be  at 
a  loss  to  choose  among  the  several  courses  now  pre- 
sented lo  us.  If  wc  are  to  regard  notliing  hut  naked 
duty,  wiihout  having  any  re-itect  to  surrounding  cir- 
cumstances, and  to  ]jrobable  consequences,  it  would 
only  remain  to  us  to  go  lorward,  ai  once.  But  there 
are  other  things  to  be  looked  at.  I  feel  for  the 
imperfeclion  which  belonn's  to  us  all :  I  am  anxious 
for  an  opportunity  to  get  at  the  foot  of  the  throne  of 
God.  Great  issues  haiisi  upon  ihe  result  of  this  pro- 
ceedimr.  Tiie  destiny  of  the  Presbyterian  churcii  in 
these  United  States  is  committed,  instrumenially,  to 
the  bosom  of  the  meinl)e.s  of  ihi«   .Synod.     We  may 

tiacificatc,  and  may  be  the  instrument  of  saving,  to  a 
ate  posterity,  that  precious  deposile  committed  to 
our  care  by  i  he  Great  Owiit  r  and  master  of  us  all:  the 
deposile  ol'  a  church  whose  history  has  been  a  histo- 
ry of  fflory,  and  will  long  coniinue  to  be  so,  it  we  do 
not  permit  it  lo  be  ruined  by  that  (;ool  Jesuitism  vvliicli 
smiles  at,  while  it  ajritales  us.  Yes,  sir :  I  hav  e  seen 
it;  I  have  seen  the  snule  gleaming  from  the  faces  of 
some  members  here,  while  they  are  rocking  our 
church  inlo  tempest,  anti  jeopardizintr  its  very  exist- 
ence. 1  do  not  speak  now  of  brother  Barnes.  No:  it 
is  not  of  him  i  say  such  things.  I  know  him,  and  I 
love  him.  1  have  studied  with  him.  and  prayed  with 
him:  and  I  can  echo  from  a  broken  heart  the  senti- 
ment which  has  once  been  alluded  to  in  this  debate, 
/'save  him,  oh  save  him  from  the  pernicious  innueiice 
of  evil  couiisellwrs.'  If  any  thing  can  sink  forever  hia 
inHueiice  Inr  good,  and  destroy  beyond  hope  of  reco- 
very tliat  weight  of  character  which  he  might  have 
brought  to  bear  on  the  bc#t  interests  of  religion,  it  is 
to  be  found  in  the  history  ol  this  Synod.  1  have  tried 
to  be  calm;  yet,  at  every  step  we  have  taken,  we 
have  had  new  weights  continually  hunsr  about  our 
our  heels;  quibble  has  succeeded  to  (juihble — and 
quirks  and  wiredrawn  distinctions,  and  still  new 
interruptions  have  met  us  every  moment.  At  one 
minute  we  have  been  assailed  with  a  hallowed  zeal 


MR.    BARNES.  75 

for  our  ad  nir;i!)Ie  constiLution  ;  at  iIh5  riftxt  we  Iiavd 
been  paralyzwl  by  tlieinosl  Ireezing  infiid'erenro  l)oth 
to  its  li'.tter  iuid  spirit,  it  rotniireti  tlie  paliencc  of 
Job  liiniseir,  not  to  I'felllie  i'lllupncc!  of  Pome  excite- 
ment in  circumstances  like  tiiese.  Yet.  so  far  as  tny 
own  mind  lias  l^)een  moved  at  all,  it  has  been  more 
with  {^rief  than  witli  aii;zcr.  While  1  have  been  called 
by  t!ome  bu(  a  half-way  Prcf^bylerian,  1  have  felt  my 
bosom  vvriinj^  wiih  piiy  and  with  horror,  to  see  what 
Boine  men  will  resori  lo,  to  save  a  sinking  cause.  To 
me  it  seems  chat  every  step  I  take  may  be  fraught 
with  the  seujinal  principle  of  ihe  destiny  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church.  Let  not  tlie  friends  of  what  is  called 
Old  School  Presbyteriani.sfu  abandon  their  ground. 
Let  us  lake  lime:  a  month,  if  it  he  necest^ary:  let  us 
do  our  whole  duly.  1  know  not  what  ought  to  be  our 
next  step.  The  next  may  be  of  radical  inijiortnnce. 
If  to  sto|)  be  wise,  why  let  us  stop :  or  it  may  be  ri'4ht 
and  expedient  to  dissolve  the  Presbyteiy,  tiiough  I 
should  think  not:  I  should  bo  sorry  to  see  the  whole 
force  of  this  large  ecclesitisiical  assembly  set  in  array 
to  cut  out  of  being  one  small  section  of  our  body.  I 
think  it  cannot  be  necessary.  Let  them  keei)  their 
documents,  if  they  will:  J  would  not  move  a  straw 
to  get  them  ;  but  1  pity  what  I  see  must  be  the  result 
ot  so  unworthy,  so  ilisgraceful  a  proceeding. 

Mr.  Porter.  I  am  the  elder  to  whom  the  brother 
referred  as  havinu' left  the  Synod.  1  did  call  Mr. 
Breckinridge  to  order,  a?  having  emsloyed  very  un- 
chris  idn  language,  and  applied  it  to  his  brethren  of 
this  body.  1  said  that  liis  latiguage  was  not  Chris- 
tian. I  think  so  stdl.  It  was  language  such  as  never 
should  be  used  by  one  Christian  brother  when  speak- 
ing of  another. 

Moderator.  The  remarks  of  Dr.  Breckinridge 
had  relerence_  to  your  expressions  about  washing 
your  hands  of  tlie  Synod  and  all  its  doings,  and  re- 
tiring from  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Mr.  Pouter.  Did  not  he  (Mr.  R.  Breckinridge) 
call  his  brethren  murderers  /  1  said  that  if  such  lan- 
guage was  suffered,  1   would  wash   my  hands  of  you. 

Mr.  11.  Breckinkidge.  1  now  repeal  all  that  I  then 
said,  and  would  tlie  tmie  permit  I  would  say  still  as 
much  more;  and  let  ihe  authors  of  such  a  proceed- 
ing wither  and  hang  their  heads.  I  say  their  course 
is  despicable,  before  God  and  men. 

Dr.  Green.  We  nave  in  this  case  to  steer  between 
Scyilaand  Charybdis:  between  tenderness  to  Mr. 
Barnes  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  sacred  and  imperaiive 
duty  on  the  other.  We  refuse  the  duty  at  our  peril: 
lor  we  owe  it  both  to  the  church  of  God  and  to  her 
glorious  Head.  We  have  had  ditferent  alternatives 
presented  to  us  to  choose  among:  and  we  have  had 
time  enough,  I  think,  to  make  our  election  of  that 


76  TAIA.L  OV 

course  which,  while  it.  is  the  most  tender  to  the  party 
coricerne.l,  sliall  yet  secure  the  safety  of  the  church, 
now,  a-5  Icorieive,  in  immiiient  peril.  That  courife 
is  to  proceed  with  the  trial:  and  to  treat  the  paper 
presented  by  the  arcused  as  no  hiu.  And  for  my  own 

Eart  i  shnuld  tie  for  proceeding   inslanler,   hut  we 
ave  now  reached  the  hour  of  adjournment. 

The  Synod  now  adjourned  lo  Saturday  morning  at 
haif-pasi  ei^ht  o'clock.    Closed  with  prayer. 

Salarday  Morninsr,  Oct.  31. 

The  Synod  met  and  was  opened  with  prayer. 

Tlie  minutes  of  the  last  sitting  were  read  and  cor- 
rected. The  report  of  the  Treasurer  of  Synod  xvas 
received.  The  Synod  tlien  resumed  the  trial  of  Mr. 
Barnes. 

Mr.  DuFFiELD  presented  the  following  from  tho 
Asseinhly's  Second  Presbytery  of  Phjladelifhia : 

The  2  1  Presbytery  of  Piiibdulphia  hereby  respectfully  give 
notice  of  their  design  to  appeal  from  the  decision  of  Synod 
yesterday,  and  lay  belore  the  Synod  the  following  resolution, 
VIZ   : 

Uesolved,  That  this  Presbytery  do  hereby  appeal  from  the 
resolutions  of  Synod,  inflicting  censure  on  us  lor  contumacy 
in  ri'fiising  to  subniii  our  records;  because  the  Synod  having 
refused  to  consider  our  plea  in  bar,  construed  the  presentation 
of  it  as  an  dct  of  coniuinacy,  and  censured  us  withoul  a  hear- 
ings whicli,  in  our  judgment,  is  both  unconstitutional  and  un- 
just.   A  true  extract,  George  Duffield,  Clerk. 

Modi:rator.  The  18th  sub-section  of  the  3d  sec- 
tion of  tlie^ih  chajiter  on  Discipline,  declares  that 
"an  appeal  sh  til  in  no  case  be  entered  except  by  one 
of  I  he  original  jiarties." 

Mr.  11.  BuECKiNRioGF.  moved  that  the  paper  now 
handed  in  be  referred  to  a  committee. 

Mr.  DkWiit.  The  Presbytery  certainly  are  an 
oriiriiial  party  in  this  cause. 

Mr.  VV  i.NCHiiSTEr!.  The  Presbytery  have  not  sub- 
mitted to  trial  at  all. 

Dr.  McDowell.  They  were  not  allowed  to  be 
heard. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  They  did  answer  of  record  ; 
and  they  were  censured  lor  their  answer — and  the 
censure  also  is  of  record. 

The  question  was  put  on  the  motion  to  refer,  and 
earned.  The  paper  was  then  referred  to  a  cotTimit- 
tee  of  Messrs.  Winchester,  McDowell,  and  Rimer. 
Dr.  McDowell  asked  to  be  excused  from  serving  on 
the  committee,  but  the  house  refused  to  e.xcuse  him. 

Mooerator.     What  will  the  Synod  now  do  ? 

Dr.  McDowell,  i  wish  to  make  one  ell'ort  more; 
though  I  do  not  know  whether  this  is  the  proper  time 
to  do  it.  Far  he  it  from  me  to  do  any  thing  that  shall 
embarrass  the  Synod.  1  feel,  myself,  exceedingly 
embarrassed  ;  yet  1  am  assured  we  shall  at  last  liave 


MR.    BARNES.  77 

to  com3  to  it,  miJ  the  sooner  tlie  better.  I  will  rrad 
II  motion  wliirli  I  have  prepared,  and  which,  if  it  is 
in  order,  I  wi.sh  to  present  to  the  house.  Dr.  McD. 
tlien  read  in  substance  a.s  lullows: 

"  Whereas  ihc  Synod  has  failed  to  procure  attested  copies 
of  the  records  of  ilie  Assembly's  2d  Presbytery  in  llie  case  of 
Mr.  Barnes  :  and  wlicrcau  Mr.  Ijarncs  lias  objected  to  the 
nial's  proceeding  without  such  reeord  :  therefore,  Resolved, 
whi!;;  the  SynoJ  re;];rct  the  embarrassments  cast  in  the  way 
of  its  proceedings  by  llic  (Assembly's)  2d  Presbytery,  and 
while  they  believe  that  the  Presbytery,  in  widdiolJing  its  re- 
cords, aclcil  in  an  unconstitutional  and  disorderly  manner, 
that  they  refer  the  whole  cise  to  the  General  Assembly,  re- 
questing that  reverend  body  to  take  up  and  issue  the  appeal." 

iVtr.  ii.  Bki::ckinridce.  Is  f^uch  a  motion  in  order  ? 
[t  contravenes  in  tho  most  direct  manner  every  pro- 
ceeding and  determination -aJ'thc  Synod  in  the  case. 

Dr.  McDowell.  Has  there  been  any  decision  of 
this  house  not  to  reler  the  case  to  the  Assembly  ? 
And  if  there  has  been,  circumstances  have  since  then 
materialiy  altered.  We  are  in  a  ditl'erent  position. 
U'  this  measure  could  be  adopted,  it  would,  in  my 
judijment,  be  very  desirable.  I  hope  we  shall  at 
least  have  the.  opportunity  calmly  to  look  at  it.  But 
ii  the  motion  is  out  of  order,  1  have  no  wish  to  em- 
barrass the  house. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  The  paper  covers  the  very 
^?round  which  has  been  fought  over  ibr  three  days, 
and  has  been  over  and  over  decided  on  by  large  ma- 
jorities. 

Mr.  J.  Latta.  We  have  been  sitting  here  these 
three  days  to  get  at  this  object,  and  1  hope  that  no 
farther  obstacle  will  now  be  thrown  in  our  way. 

MonER.vTou.  Tlie  motion  is  out  ol  order.  The 
house  has  settled  the  point:  it  has  resolved  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  trial;  and  such  motions  only  throw  us 
into  emharras?;meiir. 

Mr.  Ad  MR.  What  we  have  heretofore  decided 
was  decided  in  view  of  the  fiict  that  Mr.  Barnes 
would  consent  to  be  tried.  We  now  find  he  will  not 
consent.  The  case  is  clianged.  How  tlien  is  the  mo- 
tion out  of  order  ? 

Mr.  M'Calla.  I  move  you  that  Synod  proceed  to 
coubider  the  unlinished  business. 

Dr.  Cathcakt.  1  object  to  that  course.  We  have 
various  business  belore  us:  and  only  two  synods  in 
forty  years  have  ever  been  known  to  sit  into  the  se- 
cond week.  How  lopg  will  this  trial  take?  We 
have  other  matters  on  hand  of  lar  more  importance 
to  the  welfare  of  our  churches.  I  do  not  indeed  say 
that  this  is  an  atlair  of  trifling  importance;  but  the 
book  of  Mr.  Barnes  is  now  published:  it  is  in  the 
hands  of  the  public  :  and  I  don't  believe  that  your 
decision  will  change  the  opinion  of  a  single  individu- 
al. The  new  organization  of  our  Presbyteries  ia  a 
7 


78  TRIAL    OW 

vwy  important  busiiiees  :  they  ran  be  arranged  in  a 
manner  very  advantageous  to  tlie  churches.  If  we 
so  on  with  ihis  business,  wlio  cun  tell  where  wo 
shall  make  an  end  of  it  ?  There  are  two  hundred  and 
Ibrty-nine  niemberi^,  every  one  of  whom  has  n  right 
to  speak  on  the  merits  of  the  case  alter  all  the  tesii- 
niony  ajid  all  the.  pleadin.i^s  are  through  with. 

MoDEitATOR.  The  Moderator  decides  that  the  mo- 
tion is  out  ol"  order:  inasmuch  as  Synod  has  deter- 
mined that  it  will  proceed  with  the  trial,  and  that 
there  is  no  legal  bar  in  the  way. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridgf.  I  move  tliat  the  paper  hand- 
ed in  by  Mr.  Barnes  be  referred  to  a  committee 
whoso  duty  it  shall  be  to  form  a  minute  exprespive 
of  the  reasons  why  the  Synod  cannot  admit  it  to  be  a 
bar  to  our  proceedings.  It  may  be  the  siime  commit- 
tee to  whom  was  reterrcd  the  appeal  of  the  (Assem- 
bly's) 2d  Presbytery. 

Mr.  Winchester.  Dr.  McDowell  moved  its  com- 
mitment last  night:  bi>t  no  question  was  taken. 

Moderator.  That  is  now  the  quet^tion  belbre  Sy- 
nod. 

Dr.  McDowell.  I  do  not  wish  to  fnsist  upon  my 
motion.    I  withdraw  the  motion. 

Moderator.  Then  the  question  is  now  on  Dr. 
Green's  motion,  that  the  paper  presented  by  Mr. 
Barnes  is  no  bar  to  our  proceeding  with  the  trial.  Dr- 
Green  was  ordered  to  draw  up  reasons  for  that  judg- 
ment. 

Dr.  McDowell.  This  paper  is,  in  my  view,  a  very 
serious  bar  in  our  way  :  so  much  so  that,  according  to 
my  apprehension  of  the  matter,  we  cannot  procee<l 
correctly  to  issue  the  case.  We  have  not  a  full  ex- 
position of  the  testimony,  as  I  suppose.  In  consist- 
ency with  the  grounil  taken  by  the  2d  Presbytery,  1 
presume  they  will  explain  nothing;  I  tr.ke  it  lor  grant- 
ed they  will  not  open  their  lips  in  dej'ence  of  iheir  de- 
cision. Our  proceedinijs,  therefore,  nnist  be  wholly 
ex  parte.  Nor  will  Mr.  Barnes  defend  himself,  or 
take  any  farther  step  in  the  matter.  This  presents 
a  state  ol  things  so  serious  to  my  mind,  that,  with  my 
present  impressions  1  must,  if  called  on  to  vote,  de- 
cline doing  so.  I  could  not  conscientiously  do  it.  I 
cannot  decide  on  such  a  partial  view  of  the  case.  I 
am  therefore  opposed  to  our  proceeding  any  further. 
I  say  this  most  seriously  ;  and  I  take  this  opportunity 
to  apprise  the  Synod,  so  that  when  the  hnal  vote 
shall  be  called  for,  I  may  not  be  considered  as  capri- 
cious in  relusing  to  give  my  vote.  I  can't  do  it.  In 
the  fear  of  God,  I  can't  do  it. 

Mr.  McCalla.  I  hope  I  agree  with  Dr.  McDow- 
ell in  some  things,  viz.  in  this,  that  I  speak  serious- 
ly :  that  I  act  in  the  fear  of  God.  But  it  is  not  for  a 
mimsier  of  Christ,  who  has  sworn  both  to  do  and  to 


MR.    BARNES.  19 

(mtrt;r  all  that  devotion  to  Christ's  flock  may  call 
upon  him  to  do,  to  refuse  to  act  vvlieri  duty  calla  for 
action.  VV^e  arc  now  deliberatins:  on  a  question 
which  deserves  very  serious  consideration,  viz.  whe- 
ther we  will  proceed  and  administer  tlio  dit^cipline 
required  at  our  hands  by  the  laws  of  Chri-sl'rf  huufe. 
In  the  (irsl  place,  we  are  by  our  olficc  watciimen  upon 
Zion'e  walls:  we  arc  placed  there  to  blow  the  truni- 
I)et,  and  j^ive  the  alarm  on  the  first  appearance  of 
the  eiemy.  We  are  shepher<ls:  and  are  we  to  turn 
and  Hee  when  we  see  the  wolf  coming?  One  has  en- 
ik-avored  to  show  us  that  the  enemy  is  not  only  coin- 
in;?,  but  come.  Aye— but  there  is  a  b(ir  in  the  way. 
And  what  is  it  ?  That  the  enemy  lias  run  avvay?  oh 
no.  Or  at  least  does  he  tremble  at  such  an  array  of 
the  embattled  host  of  the  Lord  7  I  wish  such  a  band 
was  ever  ready  to  meet  him  in  the  p:atcs.  Better 
were  it  if  all  those  who  encroach  on  the  peace  and 
purity  of  Christ's  house,  should  l)?liold  such  a  pha- 
lanx of  armed  watchmen  on  Zion's  lowers,  that  it 
inijfht  still  be  said,  "  They  saw  it,  and  so  tliey  niar- 
vflled  :  they  were  troublcil  and  hasted  away."  I  do 
not  say  that  the  party  accused  is  an  enemy  ot  God's 
church;  but  tlie  appellant  alleires  feem  to  be  such. 
Does  the  constitution  sanction  the  ground  now  taken 
by  Dr.  McDowell  ?  Does  it  make  it  essential,  before 
we  can  issue  an  appeal  from  a  lower  judicatory,  that 
that  judicatory  shall  bi  willing  to  come  to  our  bar  7 
IJefore  we  try  an  accused  party,  must  that  party  be 
willing  to  be  tried?  If  that  were  its  doctrine,  then 
when  a  church-member  was  accused  ol  murder,  all 
he  would  have  to  do  in  order  to  escape  the  discipline 
of  the  church,  would  be  to  set  the  pouts  ;  to  shut  up 
his  mouth,  and  refuse  to  speak  a  word,  or  else  to 
nay,  '  1  object  to  being  tried.'  But  pray  is  this  to 
stop  the  course  of  discipline  ?  does  it  make  the  least 
dill'erence  in  the  duty  of  the  court?  Not  the  least. 
The  law  remains  the  same,  whether  he  is  silent  or 
whether  he  speaks  out.  Such  is  the  law,  and  such 
has  always  been  our  usage.  It  is  the  course  of  all 
courts,  civil  and  ecclesiastical.  But  there  is  a  dille- 
rence  of  temperament  among  men:  nor  will  age,  or 
standinjr,  or  experience,  or  exalted  titles  alter  the 
case.  There  are  some  men  who,  wiien  their  con- 
science tells  them  there  is  a  great  object  in  view,  go 
forward  toward  it  like  Leviathan,  who  "  is  comely  in 
hie  going,"  and  w;ho  "  turneth  aside  for  none."  They 
care  not  who  is  in  the  way,  or  who  turns  tail  and 
runs  away.  The  object  is  before  them  :  duty  call*  : 
and  their  word  is  '"Forward  I"  There  are  others 
who  as  soon  as  they  catch  sight  of  the  enemy,  turn 
about  and  make  haste  to  save  themselves.  And  there 
are  yet  others,  who  are  like  a  young  child  upon  a 
carpet;  ihey  s.umble  at  every  straw;  ever^'  wrinkle 


80  TRIAL  or 

is  a  har  in  tlicir  way.    But  tliis  Synod  is  not  compos- 
ed of  men  like  theee.    Wiiy  then  should  we  del;iy? 

Dr.  Gkken.  I  do  no(.  see  Ihe  need  ol  cominilting' 
Mr.  Barnes'  paper  al  all.  Your  reconl  already  etalcrt 
eulficient  reasons-  for  proccedinfr  with  the  trial.  You 
have  said  that  this  paper  is  no  Kufficient  bar.  If  I  did 
believe  that  liiere  was  iho.  kviat  danger  of  injuslicw 
to  liie  accused,  I  shcultl  he  a.s  ready  to  arrest  die 
course  of  the  trial  as  any  man  licrc.  Bui  you  havo 
helbre  you  the  original  record  of  the  sentence,  and 
Dr.  Junivin  tells  you  that  he  hay  in  writing  every  par- 
ticle ol  the  evidence  e.xhibitcd  hclbre  the  Presbytery  r. 
and  your  Book  of  Di.scii)line  completely  covers  the 
case.  Having  all  these  nuiJorials  to  go  upon,  why 
commit  7  The  way  is  clear.  But,  if  thehoiiseclioose 
to  commit  the  paper  ami  wish  me  to  draw  up  the 
reasons  why  it  is  no  bar  to  our  progress,  I  can  state 
what  1  have  briefly  referred  to.  But  1  think  you  have; 
11  fair  open  door  belore  you,  and  that  there  is  no  need 
of  thus  piling  u|)  record  on  record. 

Mr.  Lawrknck  called  lor  a  division  of  the  question  :: 
it  was  divided  accordmgly,  and  put  1st  on  declaring 
the  paper  of  Mr.  Barnes  no  bar  to  the  trial ;  and  thea 
on  committing  the  paper.  Both  parts  of  tlic  motior\ 
were  carried  by  a  large  majority. 

MoDKRATou.  ijynod  will  now  proceed  to  hear  the 
testimony  in  support  of  the  apperil. 

Mr.  Bar.ne.s.  1  shall  probat)ly  take  an  appeal  to  the 
General  Assembly.  TJie  reasons  I  shall  give  in  at 
the  proper  time. 

Mr.  K.  Brixkinridce.  None  can  appeal  until  he 
has  regularly  submitted  to  a  trial.  Mr.  Barnes  has 
not  so  submitted,  and  cannot  regularly  appeal.  There 
is  no  need  of  entering  tiiis  notice  of  appeal  in  our  re- 
cord. 

Dr.  M'DowELi>.    I  hope  it  will  be  entered. 

Mr.  GiLBiuiT.    I  move  that  it  be  recorded. 

Mr.  R.  IvRi'CKLNRiDGi:;.  It  is  obvious  tiiat  there  is  a 
settled  design  here  to  consume  our  lime. 

Mr.  GiLHKRT.  Our  book  says  that  "all  persons 
who  have  submitted  to  a  regular  trial  in  an  inlerior, 
may  appeal  to  a  higher  judicatory." 

The  question  being  ])ut  on  recording  Mr.  Barnes' 
notice  ol  appeal,  the  rnoutrator  pronounced  it  to  bo 
decided  in  tiie  negative. 

A  division  of  the  liouse  was  called  for  by  several 
members. 

Mr.  II.  Breckinridge.  I  wish  the  Moderator  to  de- 
cide whether  Mr.  Barnes  was  not  disorderly  in  giving 
llie  noiice  as  he  did. 

MooEUAToH.  i  think  it  was  an  improper  time  to 
give  such  notice. 

Dr.  M'DowELi..  Vv''e  have  just  now  voted  the  pi  -a 
he  put  in  to  be  no  har  to  our  proccf'ding  with.  ^  iQ 
trial:  and  he  now  appeals  from  that  decision, 


MR.    BARNES.  81 

Moderator.  At  every  five  minutes  of  our  pro- 
ceedingrs  puch  an  appeal  may  be  put  in. 

Mr.  M'Cali.a.  a  eynod  in  Scotland  would  have 
deposed  Mr.  Barnes  the  moment  he  declined  siihmit- 
lintj  to  il(«  authority.  How  will  it  look  if  we  allow 
him  the  right  of  appealing  at  every  fctep  of  our  pro- 
ceedinjr  ? 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  If  my  friends  here  will  allow  me,  I 
can  sro  on.  But  they  jump  and  f?eize  at  every  bait 
which  is  thrown  out  for  delay.  1  beseech  them  to  po 
on.  There  is  no  n(HMl,  when  we  have  ninety-nine  of 
a  majority  to  be  answering  every  little  quibble  that 
is  rMir-ed. 

MoDKRATOii.  The  appellant  will  proceed  with  the 
tepf  imony. 

The  clerk  now  read  the  letter  of  Dr.  Junkin  to  the 
Assembly's  2d  Presbytery. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  I  now  oiler  two  letters  which  aro  to 
Btrerii^lheii  the  case  by  fiirtiier  showing  my  ellbrls  to 
orocure  le^^il  evidrnce  lo  lay  helbre  thi*  SvnoJ.  I 
wrote  to  the  stated  clerk  of  the  2  I  Presbytery,  and 
asked  him  to  give  me  a  certified  copy  of  a  pirt  of  the 
proc«'e(iings.  I  have  hi-te  his  answer  to  that  letter. 
It  is  impDcianr,  because  it  sh<nvs  that  hedcpeni'ed  on 
nie  Ibr  the  whole  of  the  tcFiiniopy  in  'he'-ue.  I  want 
to  shoH'  that  I  :.  p|,lied  lo  him  for  a  ce  •  :i  icalion  of 
that  lestinionv. 

Here  Dr.  J.  read  the  follrvvvirir  : 
Rev.    Titos.   Eustace,    S'nfed   Clerk  of  the  2d  Prtsbyttry   (/ 
Phi  lade 'vhia. 

Dtit  Rroiher—  As  a  parly  anpellam,  I  am  pntitlpH,  bv  Book 
of  Dis''iplinp,  chap.  iv.  <»rc.  16.  ai-d  rhap.  xxi.,  to  rt  reive  au- 
thtniii-  fop'es  of  the  wliolo  piocefHmgs  i'l  'he  cv=e.  I  de- 
sire lo  have  yniir  fp' lification  to  the  Jci  ompan  vjnnr  paper, 
beine  a  na'-'  of  ihe  documents.  Yoit*.  &r. 

Oct.  31   1935.  Geo.  Junkin. 

REPLY. 

R  V.  D'.  Jiinkin — In  rpp'v  lo  your  note  of  this  morning,  I 
as  an  ipdivifliinl,  hut  not  as  .''la'id  Clerk,  would  oenify,  that 
xhe  volume  of  pap  r  to  which  voti  h-ve  depied  mvaiie?ia- 
lion  WM-*  your  own  nriva'e  p.ippr,  whieli  I  believe  y"U  read  in 
whole  or  in  pa't,  (I  cannot  sav  whii-h,)  and  comtrientpd  on, 
in  the  trial  of  Mr  Harnrs;  bin  that  .volume  wa-s  n«ver  sub- 
miiiidi"  ilip  Prpi=bv'frv  for  ilitir  II9P,  tier  is  it  any  part  of 
their  record  of  pr^ic-pdinff  in  the  case. 

(•^'ffnec')  Thomas  Ecstace. 

York    Oct.  31.  1835 

Dr.  .TiTNKiN.  I  laid  if  on  the  table  nf  the  Pre-^hytery 
and  oiiert'd  it  to  iheclcrk  :  hut  the  elerk  said  he  would 
rather  copv  the  piss^itres  ncirkod  from  hi:«  own  book. 
These  letters  will  show  that  1  claimed  my  ri^ht  ofa 
cenified  copy  of  the  r-  cords. 

Ordered  thvt  thf  leili'rs  hp  pnf  on  file. 

Mr.  R.  BREOKiN'noGF..  The  n<\Ki  step  1.=  to  join  the 
issue,  by  si:nin<r  Mr.  Barnes's  acknowledge  ment  or 
denial  of  the  charges. 


81  TRIAL    OF 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  Mr.  Barnes  did  not  deny  all  trie 
chargres  ;  he  ad  mil  led  most  of  lliein.  Tiie  pretjbytery 
did  noicall  upon  him  to  »ay  whether  he  admitted  or 
denied  the  charges. 

Moderator.^  It  is  notorious  that  the  plea  of  Mr. 
Barnes  was  of  a  geiierai  kind,  and  did  not  specifjr 
whether  he  auniiited  hinipellto  be  guilty  or  not. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  1  oiler  this  manuscript  as  the  san'.e 
iJontical  pnper  referred  lo  by  the  clerk  ol'lhe  presby- 
tery in  his  letter  which  Wiis  last  read.  1  otl'er  brother 
Steele  and  ihi;  moderator  of  ihe  f-ynod  as  witnesses, 
to  prove  that  it  is  tlie  ?ame  p;.per  I  made  use  of  be- 
fore the  presbytery.  The  moderator  had  it  in  hia 
hands, as  ediior  of  a  religijus  paper  published  in  Phila- 
delphia, and  saw  it  often. 

Mr.  S'fEtLE  was  here  examined  as  a  witness. 
[Flaving  been^^alreudy  sworn  on  a  former  occasion.] 

Moderator.  Accordiuic  to  your  best  judgment  ia 
that  the  same  pajier  produced  before  the  presbytery 
by  the  appellant  ? 

Mr.  Steele.    It  is. 

Dr.  McDowell.  Does  this  pap.>r  contain  the  whole 
ofthe  te-timuny  adduced  bclbre  the  presbytery  aa 
taken  by  the  clerk  ? 

Mr.  Steele.  I  was  not  clerk  of  presbytery  and  do 
not  know  what  the  clerk  put  down.  I  saw  this  vyrit- 
ing.  There  are  some  additional  niiirk?  in  the  linal 
part  of  it  which  1  saw  written  :  and  1  find  ibem  here 
on  this  paper.  A  close  e.Kamination  convinces  mo 
that  it  is  tl>e  same. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  Was  there  ofTered  upon  the 
trial  any  other  testimony  which  you  know  or  ever 
heard  of? 

Mr.  Steele.    Not  by  the  prosecutor. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  VVas  there  by  any  other 
person  ? 

Mr.  Steele.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  there  was 
any  olfered  by  the  accu.?e'l:  tiiere  may  have  boen 
portions  I'rorn  his  book,  but  1  ilo  not  recollect. 

Dr.  JuNKiN'.  The  witness  is  mine.  I  have  ihc 
privilege  ot  asking  him  queslions.  In  conducting  a 
trial,  lej^tiiiiony,  il  1  und^r.^land  it,  i>!  always  taken 
before  the  parlies  argue  the  c  ise.  When  they  begin 
their  argument,  Ihe  implicatioii  is  that  the  evidence 
is  done:  that  it  is  clo.-cd.  If  1  rciid  from  a  book  it  is 
part  of  my  argument ;  it  is  not  topiimony.  The  whole 
of  Mr.  Barnes's   argument   was   inid   on  the  titble  of 

(►resltyiery  asadocument  :  1  asked  for  Ihe  s^amejirivi- 
ege.  and  it  was  rifusKl.  Mr.  Barnes  did  reltr  !>  his 
book;  but  he  offered  no  more  le.^timony.  Many  parts 
ofliie  i)ook  itself  were  read  ;  but  not  a>  testimony.  I 
now  ask  Ihe  witness  whelln  r  any  ihiirg  elt^e  wus  of- 
lered  its  irstimony  before  Ihe  aryuing  of  ifie  ciiuse? 
I  admit  that  iVIr.  Bai  nesdid  read  out  of  his  book  with 


MU.    BARNES.  83 

n  view  lo  shew  that  1  inieunderstoou  ihe  passaj^co 
quoted  by  me. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  Were  you  present  during  the  taking 
of  the  tesliiiiony  before  :he  i)resbytcry7 

Mr.  Steklk.     I  think  I  was,  durinjjthc  whole  time. 

Dr.JuNKiN.  Did  Mr.  Barnes  oli'er,  as  tefitiniony, 
prior  to  the  opening  of  the  argument  by  the  j>arliep, 
unv  testimony  whatever  ? 

Mr.  Steele.  If  my  recollection  eerves  me,  Mr. 
Barnes  always  read  a  pas.-?sge  from  his  book  in  an- 
swer to  the  pas.-agcs  cited  by  Dr.  JunUin  under  each 
charge,  and  commented  on  them  at  the  time.  I'hia 
I  eui)pose  he  adduced  as  rebutthig  testimony.  But 
whether  the  court  so  considered  it  or  not  1  do  not 
know.  I  give  merely  my  own  individual  6uppo«;ition. 
I  ask  leave  to  remark  here,  as  a  reason  wiiy  1  euj)- 
pose  ihis,  that  the  trial  before  presbytery  was  con- 
ducted in  tliis  manner.  First  the  prosecutor  read  a 
passage  trnni  Mr.  Barnes's  book.  Then  the  prosecu- 
tor w, IS  heard  in  support  of  that  charge.  Then,  when 
he  had  hnishcd  his  remark?,  (he  accused  was  heard 
in  re()ly,  when  he  first  read  passages  out  of  his  book 
and  then  commented  upon  liiem. 

Dr.  JUiNKiN  now  read  the  rule  in  reference  to  tho 
recording  of  testimony,  from  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
cliap.  vi.  sec.  10. 

"Every  qnpstion  put  to  a  witness  sliall,  if  required,  be  re- 
duced to  v.iidng.  When  answered,  it  shall,  together  with 
the  answer,  I'c  recorded,  if  deemed  by  either  parly  of  suffi- 
cient iiiiporiance." 

Mr.  Bark.  I  insist  that  ail  that  is  said  by  the  wit- 
ness sliall  t)e  taken  down,  if  any  member  of  the  court 
shall  desire  it. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  The  meaning  of  the  rule  is 
evidently  itiis,  that  even  if  the  court  shall  not  deem  a 
thing  said  of  suliicient  importance  to  be  recorded. 
Btill,  ifeiiher  of  the  parties  shall  think  it  so,  i:  shall 
be  taken  down.  Of  course  any  member  of  the  court 
can  have  it  done  at  pleasure. 

Moderator.  Any  part  ol  the  testimony  may  he  re- 
duced to  writing,  if  any  member  of  tlie  court  or  either 
of  the  parlies  shall  desire  it. 

Mr.  Steele  then  repeated  his  last  answer,  and  it 
was  t  iktMi  down  by  the  clerk. 

Dr..lu.\KiN.  Was  the  whole  of  ihe  testimony  read 
in  the  lirsi  |)lace,  and  iifierwards  read  in  detail? 

Mr.  SrEELE.     1  tliink  it  was. 

Dr.  Ju.vKiN.  Did  Mr.  Barnes  bring  any  witness 
into  court  llir  examiiuision/  or  any  documentary  evi- 
dence of  any  kind  ? 

Mr.  Steele.  I  have  no  recirlleclion  of  any  person'* 
being  i.iiroduced  as  a  witness  by  eiiher  parly  ;  nor  of 
any  d  )cu.iie  itary  evidence  bring  adduce<l  by  Mr. 
Barnes  besides  his  own  book,  from  which  he  read  fre- 
quen'ly  and  very  lully  in  didcrent  stages  of  the  irial. 


SI  TRIAL  OF 

Dr.  Jf  NKiN.  As  there  may  bo  difl'urent  apprehcn- 
Bions  as  to  wiial  is  nveaiil  by  docuiiienlary  evidence, 
1  wisii  10  ask  ihc  \viti-.'.ss  whether  llie  deCendant  in 
the  course  of  hisdelence  read  from  any  other  works 
hcsides  his  book  on  the  Romans?  euch,  for  instance, 
aa  Edwards,  die  Bihlicai  Ilci)ertory,  &c. 

Mr.  Steelk.    YesihecJid. 

Dr.  McUowEL.  Does  this  rebuttinfij  testimony 
make  a  part  of  what  is  here  presented  before  ihia 
court  ? 

Mr.  R.  Brf.ckinridge.  There  should  be  something 
in  the  (juestion  to  show  tiie  real  slate  ol"  tiie  lict.  It 
is  evident  Iroin  the  reply  of  the  witness  that  there 
was  no  rebuitin;?  testimony  adduced.  If  the  question 
irt  enrcred  in  the  Ibrm  proposed  it  will  appear  that 
there  was  rebutting  testimony,  when  he  stated  there 
was  tionr. 

Dr.  McDowEL.  As  I  understood  the  pcitness  this 
rebuniiiir  tesiiniony  was  read  under  each  ciiarge  a« 
Dr.  Jiinkiii  proceeded.  I  want  (o  know  whether  thia 
makes  lart  ol  tiie  documents  before  the  court  ? 

Mr.  SrEELE.  I  have  already  answered  the  ques- 
tion :  this  d(icun)ent  contain.-^  only  tlie  proof  address- 
before  ilie  Preshyicry  l>y  Dr.  JuiiUiii.  It  Mr.  iiarnes 
read  at  any  lime  the  same  pu.-sij^es  i'roni  iiis  book 
which  Dr.  Juiikin  re;id,  ihen  this  conlains  a  part  of 
what  Mr.  [jrime-s  read  :  if  not,  then  it  conuiins  no- 
thinir  of  what  he  read. 

Mr.  Campbkll.  Do  you  know  that  this  documct>t 
coma  ins  <itl  ilie  evidence-  which  had  an  inHuence  on 
the  court  below  in  giving  its  jud^finent  ? 

Mr.  Mu.-cRAVE  [l;i  the  the  cooit.J  Moderator  may 
there  not  adiii.cmly  arise  from  itielact  of  Mr.  Barnea 
declmiiii:  lo  deli  ml  hiiiitell  and  no  advocates  beir;^ 
ap|)niuled  m  his  lielialf? 

Mr.  M'Cali  A  [to  the  witness.]  Did  not  Dr  Junkin 
formal  y  lay  before  tlit;  P'e--tiy  te.ry  inculp.itury  pas- 
naijes  from  Mr.-  Barnes'  book  as  evidence  a:;ainst 
liim,  iteiin  e  ihcrari^ument  on  his  jjarl  commenced. 

Mr.  Steele.  "H.-^diJ.  - 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Did  Mr.  Barnes  form  illy  lay  before 
the  1  r<sli>Ler)  ony  reliuiiinjr  lesiimony  Irom  the 
eame  book  iu  fore  i  is   iri^umcnt  in  reply  ? 

Mr.  Sri-Ei.E.     He  ilnl. 

Mr.  IIaimner.  Did  Dr.  Junkin  produce  before  the 
Presbytery  .uiy  oMier  Le.-iinioiw.  tiocnm  niary  or 
otherwise,  iliiii  i-  found  in  Mr.  iJarnes's  book  ? 

Mr.  Steele.  Dr.  Juokin  slated  in  his  teller  to  the 
Presiiyifiy  ihai  he  li.ul  no  oUmt  wiiness  to  adduce 
than  'ln'  book  iisi  If:  and  that  Mr.  Birne.s'  notes  on 
the  Romans  weic  the  vviinesses  lo  wiiom  he  would 
appeal  ill  snppori  of  his  cliar^^e.-.  Bui  in  his  pleadings 
refen  nee  w.i.-  i.l'teii  I. ad  to  oilier  auiliorilits.  I  add, 
in  answer  to  Mr.  M'Caihi,    that   iu  introducin;;    the 


W'l     ''       '"''"       ^'"■"        '' 


-tv     1>C 


^ 


?^,.J.J'- 


MR.    BARNHS.  85 

evidence,  rcmarlct;  iiii<^hl  have  been  iiiiulo.  prcvioue  to 
!l:e  reading  of  passci;iefc-  by  bolli  or  eillier  ol  tbc  )mr- 
lics:  but,  111  ,2;eiic'i  ill,  i)Js«Li<;e-i  Ironi  llie  book  \vcrc 
roa<l,  and  tbcn  coinincnted  on  by  eacli  party. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Were  not  the  passa^ses  quoted  by 
Dr.  Jiinkin  read  by  the  Pre.sliyLery  belbrc  the  argii- 
inent  ? 

Mr.  Stfci.e.  The  charges,  toircther  with  the 
proof,  were  first  read. 

Mr.  M'Cali.a.  Were  the  rebnttinj?  pas-sa^eB  ad- 
duced by  Mr.  Barnes  read  also  by  the  Presbytery 
before  the  argument? 

Mr.  Steele.  The  Presbytery  took  up  tlie  trial  ia 
detail.  One  charge  at  a  time  :  and,  if  I  recollert 
rigiitly,  Mr.  Barnes'  proof,  in  liie  pa.'jsages  read  by 
Jdm,  and  which  I  undL'reiocjd  to  be  meant  as  rebut- 
ting testimony,  was  adduced  under  each  particular 
cliar^e. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  What  I  want  to  know  is  wiiether 
any  evidenc,«  was  read  by  the  Presbytery  which  i.'. 
not  now  before  us? 

Mr.  Steele.  1  have  no  recollection  of  any  evidence 
l>eiiig  read  in  defence  by  any  one  but  by  Mr.  Barnes 
himself,  and  that  was  read  by  him  either  belbre,  or 
at  the  introduciion  of  his  argument. 

Mr.  Barr.  Do  you  certainly  know  that  this  paper 
contains  nothing  but  the  testimony  adduced  by  l)r. 
Junkin  in  the  trial  ? 

Mr.  Stgele.  Dr.  Junkin  has  already  stated  to  Sy- 
nod that  he  has  interleaved  the  notes  of  his  argu- 
ments with  the  pages  of  Mr.  Barnes'  book:  but  the 
document  containing  the  testimony  is  regularly  paged 
without  noticing  the  printed  pages  interleaved. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.     Tliis  witness  was  introdu-' 
ced  to  autheniicale  this  record,  and  ibr  that  purpose 
only.     He  has  done  that,   and  I    think  gentlemen 
ouehc  to  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  Hamner.  The  nnsw.T  of  the  last  question 
do38  not  meet  the  question.  Does  the  witness  know 
certainly  that  in  the  numbered  pag'  s  of  this  manu- 
script there  is  nothing  but  whatDr.  Junkin  introduced 
ua  testicnony  on  the  trial  below  1  {We  are  bound,  a^ 
a  court  to  look  for  every  particle  of  light  we  caa 
obtain.) 

Mr.  Steele.  I  have  already  elatc<i  that,  after  a 
r.arelul  examination,  I  believe  this  to  be  the  same 
identical  document  produced  before  the  Presbytery 
and  which  he  used  entire. 

Mr.  Hamn'er.  And  that  nothing  has  since  been 
addad  ? 

Mr.  Steele.    I  believe  that  no  addition  has  oeen 
made  to  it  eince  tJie  trial.    That  is  the  best  jI'.dv  be- 
lief. 
"    Mr.  Smith.    Was  thai  paper,  purpo.-ting  to  be  the 


S6  TRIAL  or 

touliniony  adduced  before  the  Pi■e^bytery  rc.id  by 
uay  or^an  ol'  the  Judicatory,  or  only  by  L)r.  Junkin 
iiimsclt"? 

-Mr.  M'Call\.  Ahi?  I  know  his  object.  Modera- 
tor /  The  old  proverb  euye,  £?et  a  logue  to  catch  n. 
rogue.     [A  laugh.] 

Mr.  Srr:ELF..  1  think  it  evident,  as  thie  paper  con- 
mins  the  testimony  and  proof  adduced  by  the  Prose- 
cutor, that  it  was  read  by  the  authority  ol  the  Pre.-=- 
bytery,  as  tlic  trial  was  entered  into  and  issued 
liiere. 

Mr.  Smith.  Vvas  not  the  exculpatory  proof  ad- 
duced by  Mr.  Barnes  introduced  in  the  same  manner  7 

Mr.  Sxr.KLE.  1  think  the  tesliuionv  adduced  by  Mr. 
Harnes  was  not  readst  paraiely  and  distinctly,  all  al 
line  lime,  as  were  the  rhari^ee?  and  the  prool  under 
liiem  as  addressed  by  Dr.  Junkin. 

Mr.  Smith.  Was  not  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Barnes 
introduced  as  much  by  the  aulhoriiy  of  the  Presby- 
tery a-j  the  testimony  adduced  by  Dr.  Junkin  ? 

Mr.  II.  Bkccki.nkidgc.  This  opens  tiiC  whole 
ease.  It  is  now  attempted  to  show  that  regular  tes- 
timony was  uroduced  by  Mr.  Barnes,  and  that  Mr. 
Barnes  relied  on  testimony  which  is  not  now  here. 

Mr.  McCali  \.  I  want  this  synod  to  do  justice,  al- 
though it  was  intimated  that  we  are  the  friends  of  the 
prosecutor  only.  I  know  no  such  distinction.  I  am  a 
friend  b  )ih  to  Mr.  Barnes  and  to  the  pror.ecutor  in 
this  cause.  The  (juestion  is  intended  to  elicit  testi- 
mony greatly  in  favor  of  Mr.  Barnes.  They  are  en- 
deavoring to  shew  that  evidence  was  laid  before  the 
presbytery  by  Mr.  Barnes  as  much  as  by  Dr.  Junkin  : 
iind  that  therefore  we  have  only  half  the  testimony  : 
■ve  have  Dr.  Junkiri's:  but  we  have  not  got  Mr. 
Barnes's.  And  have  not  the  friends  of  Mr.  Barnes  a 
right  to  shew  this,  ilthey  can  ?  Most  assuredly.  But 
the  whole  truth  should  be  brought  out.  And  I  there- 
fore ask  the  witness  whether  Mr.  Barnes  had  any 
evidence  separate  from  his  argument,  which  he  pro- 
duced before  the  presbytery,  in  the  same  m?,nner  aa 
Dr.  Junkin  did  ? 

Dr.  JlnivI.n.  I  object  to  the  question.  It  implies 
that  Mr.  Barne^i  had  testimony  ;  which  is  denied. 

Mr.  McCalla.  1  did  not  u.se  the  word  testimony. 
1  know  tliere  were  no  witnesses  examined:  I  used 
the  word  "evidence." 

Dr.  Jlnkin.  1  object  to  that.  Vou  have  proof  thai 
no  testimony  was  adduced  l)y  Mr.  Barnes. 

MoDERA  roil.    The  questiun  is  in  order. 

Mr.  Steki.e.  The  passages  from  liis  book  whi:h 
were  read  by  Mr.  Barnes,  and  wiiich  1  supposed  hi  n 
to  introduce  as  evidence,  were  evidently  read  with 
the  approbation  of  the  Presbytery. 

Mr.  rf.MiTii.     The  answer  is  not  definite.    My  ob- 


MR.    BARNES.  8T 

j«rt  was  tliip:  it  wau  said  by  brother  McCalla  that 
the  testimony  supfjoped  by  Mr.  btnele  to  be  rebut iin»r 
testimony  was  not  testimony, but  only  nr^riimcnt ;  and 
that  tiial  introdnc.od  by  i)c.  Junkin  wae  tci=tiinony  and 
was  read  with  the  approbation  of  the  Frcisbyiery. 
Now  what  I  vvantcd  was  to  know  whether  the  proof 
introdui-ed  by  brother  Barnes  did  not  stand  on  pre- 
oipcly  tiie  same  ground  belore  the  Presbytery  as  that 
adduced  by  the  I'rosecutor  ? 

Mr.  Stekle.  I  will  give  all  the  answer  I  can.  I  do 
not  know  the  comparative  estimate  the  Presbytery 
Bet  upon  the  two. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  I  am  averse  to  preventing  the  wit- 
ness from  bein?  examined  and  cross-examined  till 
bretliren  are  satisfied. 

Mr.  Gibson.  I  was  present  in  the  court  during  the 
whole  of  the  trial,  and  1  wish  to  see  whether  ihr, 
witness's  recollection  oi  it  agrees  with  my  own.  And 
I  now  enquire  did  not  riie  court  ajjree  that  the  tem- 
porary Clerk  sliould  copy  the  evidence  from  the  doc- 
ument of  Ur.  Junkin? 

Mr.  Steele.    I  think  so. 

[Here  the  trial  was  suspended,  in  order  to  receive 
the  following  Report  of  Dr.  Green. 

"Afier  deliberation  on  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Barnps, 
and  the  paper  laid  by  him  before  the  Synod  coritaiuing  the 
eubstance  of  thesaid  statcinnnt. 

Resolved,  That  although  the  Synod  would  most  cauliou>!y 
avoid  any  proceeJure  that  might,  in  any  degree,  do  injustice 
to  Mr.  Darnes,  y;?t,  in  as  much  as  the  Sj  riod  have  in  their 
possession,  verified  an  oath,  a  correct  copy  of  the  charges 
preferred  against  Mr.  Barnes  before  the  (Assembly's)  Sf 
cond  Presbytery  of  Phil.idelphia,  and  the  decision  of  said 
Presbytery  thereon,  acquitting  Mr.  Barnes  :  and  in  as  much 
as  the  Constitution  of  the  church,  in  a  fair  construction  of  its 
provisions  and  spirit,  does  make  provision  for  proceedmgs  in 
a  trial,  in  which,  as  in  the  case  now  before  the  Synod,  ihe 
usual  documentary  evidence  cannot  be  obtained  : — and  in  as 
much  as  the  admission  of  the  validity  of  Mr.  Barnes  dcclina- 
isre  of  a  defence,  in  the  circiMiiSianccs  in  which  he  is  placed, 
would  be  to  perini'  him  to  avail  himself  of  a  wrong  done  by 
the  Presbytery  of  which  he  is  a  member:  and  in  as  much, 
finally,  as  this  Synod  entertain  a  solemn  conviction  that  the 
purity  and  peace  of  the  church  are  deeply  involved  in  as 
speedy  a  decision  of  the  case  before  thetn  as  can  be  made,  in 
consistency  with  justice  and  equity  :  therefore,  the  Synod 
feel  constrained  to  reg.ird  tiie  stTteriienl  and  paper  submitted 
to  this  Judicatory  by  Mr.  Barnes  as  formikg  no  bah  to  the 
continuance  of  the  process  already  commenced  in  his  case: 
and  thai  said  process  be  accordingly  continued  to  its  legiti- 
mate issue." 

The  report  was  accepted. 

The  Synod  then  took  a  recess. 

After  recess,  the  examinatioQ  of  Mr.  Steele  wae 
resumed. 

Q,aeBtion  by  Mr.  McRsa.    Were  the  passages  ol 


88  TRIAL   OF 

Mr.  Barnes'  book,  wliich  Dr.  Junkiii  rcfttrred  aa^ 
evidence  in  support  ol"  his  cluufrcs,  road  by  or  »' 

the  Presbytery  before  the  arjrunient  was  cnlered 
upon? 

Mr.  Steelk.  I  have  already  stated  the  order  of 
proceedinjT.  The  vvliole  oCtlie  evidence  was  read  in 
the  first  place,  ai;d  bciii.T  read,  1  take  it  lor  granlt-d 
it  was  read  by  autlioniy,  or  by  permission  of  the 
Court ;  but  by  which,  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  VViNcuESTKu.  Wart  there  at)y  other  evidence 
adddced  by  either  parly  ia  the  cause,  except  the  book 
of  Mr.  Barnes  on  the  llon)ansf  ? 

Mr.  Steele.    I  do  not  recollect  any. 

Mr.  PicKANOs.  Did  the  Presbytery  order  their 
clerk  to  take  a  copy  ot'  this  evidence,  or  procure  a 
copy  to  be  put  on  their  filet^? 

Mr.  S  fEELE.  I  preter  to  give  tlie  answer  to  a  ques- 
tion put  by  Mr.  Gibson. 

Mr.  PicKANDS.  That  answer  is  not  satisfactory, 
I  ask  whether  Presbytery  ordered  a  copy  to  be  taken 
of  this  evidence? 

Mr.  Steele.  I  do  not  recollect  such  an  order :  but. 
I  recollect  the  conversation  that  passed,  and  theotleT 
made  by  Dr.  Juukin  to  lay  the  evidence  on  the  table 
lor  tlie  use  of  the  clerk;  and  I  saw  him  do  so. 

Mr.  Pekkins.  W'ho  read  this  testimony  before  tbe 
Presbytery  ? 

Mr.  Steele.  I  cannot  answer  certainly:  though 
it  strikes  me  at  present  that  in  consequence  of  tiie 
peculiarity  of  tlie  liand-writinpr,  Dr.  Juukin  read  it  by 
.permi.-sion. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.    Was  it  by  permission,  or  by  request? 

[No  answer  was  given  to  this  quesiiun.J 

Mr.  PicKANDs.  Was  Dr.  Junkin  directed,  or  re- 
■quested  to  read  this  testiiiiony  ?  1  wish  the  witness 
to  give  a  straight-lbrward  answer. 

Mr.  R.  BuEcKLNRiDGE.    1  hupo  the  Moderator  will 

Erotect  the  witness,  and  not  permit  such  language  to 
e  used. 

Mr.  Steele.  I  believe  he  was  requested  to  read  it, 
either  by  the  Presbytery,  or  by  the  clerk. 

Mr.  Blythe.  The  Bonk  of  Discipline  requires  of 
you  that  "  VVirnessej  shall  be  e.xanuned  (irst  by  the 
party  introducing  them  :  tiien  cross-examined  by  the 
opposite  party:  alter  which  any  member  of  the  judi- 
ca(ory, or  either  p.irty  may  put  additional  interrogato- 
ries." It  also  declares  that  "  The  second  citation  to 
an  accused  person  or  a  witness  ought  always  to  be 
accompanied  with  a  notice  that  if  the  person  ciled  do 
not  appear  at  tiie  time  appoinled,  the  judicatory, 
besides  censuring  him  for  his  contumacy,  will,  after 
assigning  some  person  lo  manage  fits  dtfence,  pro^ 
ceeu  to  lake  tlie  leslimony  in  his  case  as  if  he  was 
present."    1  move  you  that,  ia  confoiniiiy  with  this 


MR.    BARNES.  89 

rtlle,  somp  porcon  be  nppoinlKl  lo  manage  llie  de- 
fence (if  ilie  :trciiP»'«l.  iiiul  tliiit  FH<  h  i  erKcn  bf  allow- 
ed to  txnniiie  ilie   \\iti;»'frs  on  luh;ill  oj  Mr.  13iirrieH 

Mr.  Oi.MsiEAD.  The  howK  peniiiu  tliio  only  where 
the  HcciutHl  li-els  iini>ble  lo  pie.  ii  hi*  own  i  :mse  :  and 
iht'ii  it  inu.-t  l>edon»' ui  his  I  t(i  lest.  ""  No  proU'Ks-ional 
counsel  isliill  he  perinined  i«  appear  and  plead  in 
ratses  of  procese  in  any  of  oin*  et-clei-iac-iica!  eoiiriK. 
Bui  if  any  acctie-ed  p«  rson  feel  unable,  lo  repietent 
Hiul  plead  his  own  cause  lo  advaiiia:ie,  he  may  re- 
quest any  ininisiiT  or  elder,  beluntjins  lo  the  judica- 
tory l)elore  which  he  appeal  k,  lo  prepare  and  exhibit 
his  ciiu«e  as  he  may  jud^je  pr-'per.  L<ui  llie  nnriisler 
or  ebler  so  eiiira<red  ^liall  nol  be  ail  iwed,  after  plead- 
ingf  the  cause  of  the  accu-t  d,  lo  ^il  in  jutlf;inini  as  a 
member  of  ihe  judicatory."    ch.  iv.  21. 

MoDEUATOH.  Til  il  IS  a  i'.icl,  and  inereibre  the  mo- 
tion is  out  of  or(U  r.  Ihe  appointnieni  is  lo  be  made 
only  wnen  the  a«  c  ned  is  unable  to  pl«'.id  for  himtell. 

Mr.  Blyihe.  iJ.il  if  ihe  moderaior  will  refer  to 
eecii')n  11,  ol'  iht  same  ciuipler,  he  will  find  thai  ihe 
provision  I  read  relcrs  lo  tllo^c.lse  of  an  accused  per- 
son who  is  refractory  and  c-oniumaci'ius.  The  ru'e 
declares  that  "' although  on  ihe  lirst  ciiaiion  the  per- 
Boii  cited  shall  declare  in  writing,  or  otherwise,  hifl 
fixed  deierminaiion  not  lo  obey  it:  ibis  declaration 
bU  ill.iu  n  »  c  ise.iii  luce  the  j.i  lic.iiorv  to  deviate  from 
the  rei^ular  course  pretcribed  l^r  citations.  They 
ehall  proceed  as  if  no  such  declaraiion  bad  been 
made."  Then  ii  goes  on  lo  proviie  that  his  .-econd 
citation  shall  be  accompanied  uiili  noiice  liiai  if  he 
does  not.  apuear,  the  court  "will,  alier  assijrnii!^ 
eome  person  lo  manase  his  delei.ie,  procetd  lo  take 
the  lesiimooy  as  if  he  were  ))ie.~eiu."  This  dues  not 
suppose  lli.u  he  cannot  attend,  but  that  lie  is  contu- 
macious and  wo. I'l  ailend.  Yet  even  in  ih  u  case  a 
represenivilive  is  t(j  he  appoiim  d  lo  maiiiifre  his  cause. 
I  am  in  fivor  ot  the  si  me  tiiiuj^'s  l)einir  done  here. 

Moderator.  The  M(«leraior  W(iuld  likr^  lo  have 
the  opinioa  ol  Synod  on  ijiis  point.  'Ihe  chair  bad 
supposed  thai  ihe  rule  re.ul  nfjired  only  lo  ihe  com- 
mencement of  rt  li  iai. 

Ur.  Green,  i  cannoi  see  any  difference  ss  to  the 
applicaiion  of  Ihe  rule,  l»euveen  the  commencement 
oi'a  trial,  or  at  a  subsequent  ^ta<fe  (.fit.  I  havebeea 
informed  that  the  course  pursued  in  civil  courts, 
■when  the  piriy  to  be  tried  ah-conds,  or  ctinnot  be 
made  to  answer,  is  tliit  the  lourt  proce<  ds  v^iih  ihe 
rame  f  >rmahiies  as  if  be  were  presenl  and  answered. 
All  advoc.aie  is  appointed  f.)r  him,  and  the  trial  ihen 
f^oes  on.  Now  solar  as  this  niiy  be  pr.ciicable  in 
llie  presenl.  care  I  am  lor  h.ivm^  't  done.  I  wish  to 
do  every  ihin''  that  vve  can  tlo,  lo  prevent  lufnre 
cavil.  1  woulu  do  all  that  jjsiice,  liial  equity,  and 
8 


90  TRIAL   OF 

even  that  formality  can  require  at  our  liand^.  I  hope 
th.ii  ill  ^'•)  lie  way  ive  islmll  get  a  resHoiident. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  When  the  accused  is  prei-ent  and 
rel'ust'p  to  plead, this  course  is  purtueii,  but  not  when 
he  is  ab-ent. 

Mr.  Olmjiead.  The  accused  may  complain  if  an 
advocate  is  asoi^jcncd  him  who  is  not  as  able  as  him- 
self. 

Mr.  AIuscRAVE.  In  the  At^sembly  this  is  done  :  and 
I  wi.vli  it  ilone  here  :  especinliy  as  tome  m(-ml>er?  uH' 
derstiand  ilie  hook  as  requirin*;  it.  1  wigli  it  e?p»  cial- 
]y  with  a  view  to  public  senliriienf.  We  have  under- 
t.ikeii  to  try  ttiis  cause  williout  h.iviriij;  the  docuiMcnta 
of  ihc  court  appealed  from.  This  alone  will  operate 
as  a  j^real  disiuivarilage  to  tis.  so  far  as  popular  im- 
pre.-sions  abroad  are  «ronceriied  :  ami  now,  if  we  pro- 
ceed uitli  liie  examinaiion  of  witnesFes  wiilioul  any 
one  to  croi^sexamine  on  Mr.  Barnes'  beliall,  the  {ge- 
neral 0|)ini>)n  of  our  proceediajTs  will  be  that  they 
have  bt-en  wholly  t^x  parte,  'i'he  moral  ellert  will 
be  priKJi^'iou.-ly  injurious  to  Ut-.  To  {ruard  airaiust 
pucii  c>iMt:equences,  it  is  due  to  ourselves  lo  niakeihe 
appoiiitnieiu  proposed. 

ftlr.  M  Kinney  olfercd  a  resolution  for  the  nppoint- 
menl  ol  an  advocate  to  manajje  the  cause  on  the  be- 
half of  liif  accused. 

Mr.  WiNCiiKbTf.R.  The  book,  in  the  very  clause 
referreil  lo,  n quires  the  secon<l  citaiion  of  llie  i)arty 
accused,  if  lie  reluses  to  obey  the  first.  But  Mr. 
Barns  s  luis  not  been  cited  a  second  time.  He  has 
been  warned  by  the  prosecutor  ol  his  intenlion  lo  ap- 
peal :  bill  be  ha.s  not  Uecii  ciicij  a  second  time. 

Mr.  B  PATTERr-ON.  The  book  also  requires  that 
he  he  hrvi  cen&ured  for  coiuuirric.y. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  This  discussion  is  only  a  eacrifi* 
cin.if  ot  o.ir  lime.  AV'e  are  conlinually  met  with  these 
men  of  straw,  and  all  our  ar^^umciitation  is  only  like 
Saul's  armor  on  D.ivid. 

Di-.  .M'UowELL  here  read  again  the  passage  cited 
from  book  iv,  ch;ip.  21,  and  enquired  whether  the 
lan^ua're  was  nut  imperative? 

Mr.  I'riELPS  referred  to  the  same  passaj^e,  but  ar- 
gueil  ihatiio  second  c'tation  would  be  rcquitite  now, 
as  the  trial  had  actually  commenced. 

Mr.  II.  BKECKiJiiiiDGE.  If  the  book  requires  I  he  ap- 
pointment ol'  an  advocate,  then  we  are  ooui  d  to  ap- 
point one.  It  is  not  forbidden,  however,  though  no 
eeciaul  citation  stiould  have  issued.  I  hope  the  ap- 
poiuimeiit  will  i-e  nade,  as  it  will  conduce  at  least  to 
the  api  e  irance  of  justice.  If  any  one  can  be  s'ot  who 
will  freely  undertake  the  task,  1  should  be  in  fivor 
of  It;  bat  I  would  have  no  man  (;oiii|)elkd  to  act. 
There  is  no  need  now  for  »  new  citation,  thoiifrh  we 
may  poscibly  have  lo  cite  Mr.  Barnes  bel'ore  all  i« 


MR.   BARMEtl.  91 

over,  if  ihin^B  filiall  be  driven  to  extremiripp.  I  con- 
cur in  llie  liiictrine  that  we  may  ciie  Mr.  B^irnes  and 
nniy  proceed  very  euinnuirily.  But  I  regret  Mr. 
B.irner*'  coureo:  lie  h:i.<  deprived  liim^i-lf,  liy  if.  of 
the  ri-:li(.  ol  appeal.  1  liope  the  uppoinitnent  will  be 
made,  and  tiial  riie  ablest  niau  in  tue  SynoJ  will  un- 
deriiike  the  service. 

Ur.  CArnoAKP.  The  rule  which  rrqiiircs  the  party 
to  apply  fur  an  advocate  never  was  desi;rne(l  ibr  u 
case  of  ilii.-i  kind,  hut  oidy  applies  when  an  accused 
pereion  i.s  unable  to  aKend  or  unable  to  plead  his  own 
cause.  Tlie  rule  cannot  be  cnade  to  apply  here,  if 
Mr.  Barnes  does  not  wish  such  an  appoinunent 
made. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinuidge.  Ifihat  is  known  to  beMr. 
Barnes'  wis.i,  it  w:ll  alter  the  case. 

Dr.  Cathcakt.  I  think  we  have  received  a  pretty 
•tron^  liitu  on  that  subject. 

The  queslion  was  now  put  on  the  motion  to  ap- 
point an  advocate  to  comluct  the  delence,  and  the 
vote  was  doubirul.  The  house  was  thereupon  di- 
vided, when  it  was  evidently  carried,  there  appear- 
10*1  1 15  in  I  tvor  of  the  rec-olution. 

Moderator.  Shall  the  Chair  appoint  ?  or  will  the 
Synod  noininate  ? 

(Cries  ol''  the  Chair,  the  Chair. 'J 

Moderator.    1  nominate  Mr.  Giljigrt. 

Mr.  UiLBERT  apologized  aiicTdesired  lobs  excused 
from  serviciiT. 

Mr.  Perkins.  Mr.  Breckinridge  said  the  ablest 
man  in  JSynod  :^hould  be  appointed.  1  su^^gest  the 
appoinfinenl  of  Mr.  Robert  Breckinridge,  (a  laugh.) 

Mr.J.  Latta.  1  suggest  the  aj)pointnient  of  Dr. 
MiiDo.vcll. 

Dr.  McDowell.  The  sug'sestioti  appears  to  be  in- 
tended a8  a  ptTSOiial  retieclion^  and  as  intended  to 
identify  nie  with  the  cause  of  Mr.  BarnetJ.  In  my 
course  on  ihis  occat^ion,  I  have  endeavored  to  pur- 
sue what  Ideenied  the  order  of  the  church  to  demand. 
On  the  merits  of  the  case,  I  have  never  uttered  a 
word.  I  did  take  the  <rround  that  under  existins: 
eircum.>tauces  the  trial  uu^ht  not  to  proceed  :  and  [ 
belij/e  thu  SynoJ  wi  1  fiid  it  sj  when  t  leir  aciscome 
before  the  public  and  before  the  General  A.«senibl>  — 
([and  there  you  are  ^oin^.)  I  ani  iiere  constituted  a 
judse :  would  it  be  coneisttnf,  in  me  to  become  the 
advt)rate  of  Mr.  Barnes  ?  1  disclaim  all  piny  leel- 
insr  in  the  businest;.  1  utterly  diea\o.v  ail  identity 
wi'h  any  p;  riy.  1  am  no  party  man;  never  was: 
and  I  hope  never  shall  be. 

Mouekatok.  I  have  permitted  these  remarks,  be- 
cause the  sugi;;esiion  seemed  intended  :is  a  sarcasm. 
They  are  not  strictly  in  order. 

Mr.  McCalla.  Is  tnero  to  be  no  end  to  these  no- 
minatiotis  ? 


92  TRIAL   OF 

Moderator.  I  will  try  again.  I  nominitte  Mr. 
De  Witt. 

Mr.  Ue  Wilt  tlcrlineiJ. 

Mdderatoh.    I  nominate.  Mr.  Campbell. 

]\lr.  Uuin|)lull  «iesnM'(l  to  l)f  exivitjfd. 

Mr.  \Vi\c"K«ri:(t.  As  ilie  MudiTaior  has  now  ful- 
filled the  dniy  ii.^siiriM  «i  liiiii,  wiihoiil  eucce&p,  1  move 
that  the  I  rial  procetd. 

MoDKRAiuii.  Is  [Uere  ovy  moniber  of  llit-  Synod 
who  if;  willing  to  endLrlake  liic  duly  of  an  advuculo 
ior  I  lie  d<  If  lice  ' 

No  risjjoiisfe  being  given,  it  was  resolved  to  pro* 
ce- (I. 

Dr.  J.  BtiKCKiNRinGF..  You  have  now  derided  the 
princijde  ilial  ii  legul.ir  part  ofyour  prixretliiii^s  if  to 
Mpi)oi. It  an  advocate  for  llie  defence.  Now  it  this  ij 
a  necessary  fie|)in  tlie  proi^rts.-^  «.|'ihe  caut-e.  aril  nc 
advocate  can  be  got  to  .^erve.  djes  not  ihat  faCi.  a 
courpe,  arret^i  >onr  pr(lg^^•s^  ?  I  lutve  thought  it 
wrong  from  iiie  lir-giiuiia^  iliiil  you  shonKl  pri»ceeii 
vviilioi.it  the  j)roper  ilociiiiH-iils  from  ihe  Ple^t'yl^  ry  : 
but  I  bowed  to  llie  e,\p.ee;std  v\ill  of  the  judicatory. 
You  now  occupy  a  singular  poi-iiion.  Anil  iluTemay 
be  iioou  rcagon  why  )<mi  should  now  pause:  ai.d  in- 
stead of  iTtssinir  on  Ihe  is.<ning  ot'  this  ai)pial,  liy 
what  you  can  do  with  Mr.  IJanu  s  lersonal.'y.  siiu  e  it 
KeeiiiK  impo.<i?ible  to  arrest  ihet-e  per;  eiual  <iiliicuhie» 
which  ypriiig  up  every  moment  in  your  way.  1  biig- 
gCFt  this  for  consider.'iiion. 

Mr.  I'icKANus.  1  wish  to  explain  why  I  nominated 
Mr.  II.  lireckinridge.  1  believid  him  to  beenliiely 
cont!cieiiiioijs  in  his  course  here  ;  and  from  the  con- 
stiiutional  arilor  ol  his  ii-mperameni.  I  wa>  h  d  to  be- 
lieve that  il  he  did  undfriake  Iht-  d.feiicL',  he  would 
e.nier  iiiio  u  moie  warmly  iluiii  any  other  member  of 
Synod. 

Mr.  MiKiNNKV.  I  ihink  since  none  will  volunteer, 
we  ou;ihl  lu  a.-sign  fcome  memiter  to  the  duly  ol  ad- 
vocate. 

Moderator.  The  Chair  has  given  a  free  permis- 
sion to  any  member  to  come  forward  and  uiuieriako 
the  task  :  he  could  do  no  more,  unless  he  should  go 
about  anil  beg. 

Mr.  Bly  I  hi:.  I  doubt,  for  my  own  pavt,  whether 
if  the  ju.hcaiory  appoinifi  a  mftiiber,  lie  has  a  riiflit 
to  reUise  lo  serve,  even  ahnuugh  his  o[»iiuoiis  may 
lead  him  lo  take  ihe  other  side.  I  do  beljive  we  can- 
not constitutionally  go  on  with  the  cuuec  without 
eucii  an  appointment. 

MoDERATuR.     I  appoint  brother  Bly  the.    f.-i  laugh.) 

Mr.  Bi.v  rut:.  Moder.itor,  I  Hf\i,  alter  one  has  been 
appoint)  d  and  ha.<  U  d  Iciue  to  declinu,  whelher  I 
um  not  entitled  to  decline  ali-o?  [  iiuch  hui^itier  ]  I 
Buppoee  a  lueuibet  can  be  conii»».lltd  lo  serve :  but  if 


MR.   BARNES.  93 

one  is  allowed  to  excuse  himaelf,  another  may  claim 
the  same  privil«'{i^e.     [lauslJter.J 

Dr.  Neill.  Thmi^h  none  18  more  inciintd  to  do 
JHftice  to  Mr.  Barnt- s  than  I  am,  yei  I  am  not  re«iuir- 
ed  to  do  more.  I  think  we  have  done  all  we  can  in 
this  matter. 

It  wii.'s  ordered  that  the  trial  do  proceed. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  Is  tlie  court  satisfied  ofihe  authenti- 
city of  the  paper  I  am  abuut  to  read?  Has  it  been 
suflicienily  proved? 

Mr.  R.  BKECKiNmoGE.  I  move  that  it  is  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Synod  that  the  ducufneni  has  been  6um- 
cienliy  aathentioated,  and  that  it  he  now  read, 

Mr.  Wi.\CHES"ER.  i  hope  that  ifie  etlortol  ilie  Sy- 
nod to  obtain  an  advocate  lor  the  deleuce  will  be  en- 
tered on  our  records. — It  was  so  ordered. 

Mr,  Kamner.  I  wish  that  the  pai)er  be  authenti- 
cate<l  by  more  than  one  witness,  it  more  can  be  had. 
I  desire  this  iur  I  he  sake  of  liie  appearance  ol' our 
proi-eedinjfs  bcl'ore  the  world,  and  t)el'ore  i lie  Gene- 
ral Asseiubly.  Dr.  .Umkin,  1  think,  spoke  of  several 
witnct^.^es :  if  he  has  tiiem,  let  thenj  be  examined. 

Dr.  Ju.vKhv.  The  Moderator  of  ihe  SSynud  is  my 
next  wiiness. 

Mr.  MoKss.  If  there  are  a  thoupand  witnesses  to 
certify  ihiii  paper,  it  will  not  supply  what  is  wanting. 

Moderator.  The  Moderator  feels  adelicacy  from 
his,  position  in  coming  forward  as  a  witness,  it  is  his 
duty  to  preside  here  with  entire  impartiality  ;  ai^i 
should  he  be  placed  at  the  stand  as  a  vvitnese.  his 
answers  might  pot^^sibly  impair  the  confidence  ol  eouie 
bretnren  in  his  lupartiality. 

Dr.  JuNKiN.  I  will  state  the  reason  why  I  wish 
him  ex  iiiiiiit.d.  He  saw  me  handling  this  very  pa- 
per ill  the  Presbytery  ;  and  also  in  his  own  study: 
and  he  took  a  copy  lor  the  press. 

Dr.  Neill.  I  feel  a  deep  interest  in  the  request  of 
the  Moderiitor  lo  be  excused.  I  see  his  delicate  po- 
eition  :  and  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  necessary  ihat  he 
ehouhl  bt  examined.  For  my  sell  1  am  as  fully  sat- 
isfied that  that,  is  the  same  tlocument  as  was  exhibit- 
ed before  the  Prefbytery  as  I  cuuUI  be  if  we  had  half 
adi>zen  more  witncssea  to  prove  it.  Why  then  con- 
vert our  Moderator  into  a  wimess  in  the  cause? 

Mr.  J.  Latta.  Let  the  Moderator  put  the  ques- 
tion, and  ascertain  whether  the  minds  of  Synod  are 
not  suiii^fied. 

Moderator.  That  question  has  been  propounded, 
and  one  member  expressed  a  wish  for  farther  teeti- 
mony. 

Mr.  J.  Latta.  Well  then,  I  move  that  the  Synod 
is  satislied  that  the  document  is  authentic. 

Mr.  Haimnek.  Our  book  says  that  more  than  one 
witness  shall  be  brought  to  substantiate  every  point. 

D 


94  TRIAL    OF 

We.  are  liiyins  tlic  piilistrnitim  of  tlie  whole  raasej 
and  ran  you  rtru>e  ilie  cali  Tor  nddiiioniil  leptiiiiuny, 
when  you  txact  more  ilmn  i>w:  wifrii-ss  for  llie  i»ub- 
BtJituiitlioii  <>l  u;ic,li  item  of  I  he  rliar^re? 

MoDKRAToH.  1  h:we  iio  (ibjeciioii  to  ite  exiin)iried  if 
it  is  r(  quired.  1  can  only  eorrohorute  what  lmt>  been 
aheady  ^^.1led. 

Mr.  D.AvrK.  One  good  witnees  lor  the  purpose  of 
RullieniHuiui!;  a  piper  is  as  j^ood  as  a  ihouH.ind.  But 
il  you  wisii  iliu  Moderalur  e.xainined,  he  if  jutt  aa 
good  a  vviine8.~!  as  any  other  nieniher  oriiie  body. 

The  (piestion  w.ik  now  put  on  rti  eivingr  ihe  paper 
as  auihentie,  ami  earned  So  the  copy  ol' ilie  le^ti- 
niony  prodiicetl  i»y  Dr.  Jnnkin  wae  receivtd  as  au- 
Ihemic  by  tlie  8ynod,  and  wa.s  ihereupun  ordered  lo 
be  re  ul.     Dr.  Junkin  read  it  a<cordin?ly. 

(For  ilriri  dorunienl,  ronliiininj.'  ihc  rharfrop  a<rainst 
Mr.  LSarnct',  wiib  iheir  proof--,  Nee  the  Del'enee  of 
}^\r.  T<  .r-.'---  '^-rMrr  i  t,f.  A'"i,,|,|v's  Seeoi'd  Prej^hyte- 
ry  of  Philadelphia,  ap  published  in  the  ap|iendix.  J 

l\l..u..KAH<ii.  —  ii.ivi.i^  iieaid  ihe  teKiiniuny,  the 
nexi  t^iep  is  lo  hear  the  original  paniis. 

Mr.  M'C^ALLA.  It  wat-  said,  ihai  any  nienibei  who 
•would  voluii:eer,  inighi  be  appoinivu  to  dr  lersd  Mr, 
Birnei?:  d  ih-*;  leeiimoiiy  adducei)  in  the  court  below 
in  favor  of  the  accused  is  put  into  my  liand.s,  and  I 
fan  c,  )iisr'ieniiouslv  de'end  hiin,  I  will  do  it. 

Mr.  Perkins.  I  nvove  that  brother  M'Callabeap- 
pointcd. 

Dr.  Ju.NKiN.  The  copy  of  the  Notes  on  the  Rod- 
mans from  which  I  f^hall  quole,  is  the  New  York  edi- 
tion, printed  liy  Leaviit..  Lord  &  Co.  1834.  Dites  the 
court  wish  proof  that  ihi.-i  is  Mr.  Barnee'd  work  ?  If 
necessary,  1  can  produce,  Mr.  Barnes'.s  letter,  ac- 
Jtnowled^in'T  liiinself  to  be  the  author.  Bui  h'rsf,  I 
\f  is!i  to  read  tiie  letter  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Barnes.  I  wish 
to  read  it  because  it  will  show  the  spirit  in  which  this 
prosecution  was  be^un.  All  niust  Nurely  know  liiat 
BUch  a  ta^k  I.- oilious  in  it.'*  iiitture;  aid  that  whoever 
undertakes  it,  exposer-.  hinisell  to  public  reprobation. 
Ert|)eci  illv  is  ibis  true,  where  a  minister  comes  Irora 
a  l'jrei:rn  Presliyiery  and  throws  liiuisell  into  a  busi- 
ness of  llii.s  kiiwl  :  it  has  a  natural  lendency  lo  preju- 
dice the  court  before  which  he  thus  intrudep  himself, 
Btronji-ly  ajrainst  him.  it  isanodious  thiiifr  lo  bi  ar  the 
rcputarion  oi' a  voluntary  pr(»pecutor.  It  is  exceed- 
in;rl>  odiou^:  l)e(ause  it  too  often  happens  that  in 
eucii  a  case  tiiere  is  a  mixture  ol  unkind  personal  feel- 
injr  which  secretly  prompts  the  procet  diiiL',  or  at 
least  irl^inuates  itself  amoiiif  the  motives  wliich  lead 
to  it.  I  wish  to  read  this  leiler,  that  1  may  show  the 
real  spirit  and  design  with  which  Lliid  matter  was  ua* 
derlaken. 
Uc.  J.  then  read  the  letter. 


Mil.    BARNES.  95 

[Fop  this  document,  see  Appendix,  p.  4  ] 

To  tliit;  li'ller  1  rcccivi  d  llie  I'ollowini;  r«  fily : 

Philadelphia,  Maich  18,   1935. 

Rev.  Sir— Yi>Mr  letter  c  iiiic  t  >  inn  I  t.  -  \i\y.  In  reynr-l  to 
the '■  po'iiilalfs"  wliicli  )i)ii  liave  Mihinitied  tn  niv  aiitution 
in  your  leiies  I  ri'ina.k,  that  the  Noiea  on  the  Kuinnnsj  ars 
my  (irudiictiuri,  and  llml  I  trust  I  sha.l  never 'O  tar  forcet 
niyst-lf.  a.><  to  pui  any  one  i<>  ilie  " trouble  ofprovin.:  ir."  On 
those  Notes  I  have  bisiowid  many  no  anxious,  a  prayerful, 
Bnd  a  phaaant  hour.  'I'hi-y  aru  the  result  ui  niueli  deliberate 
attention,  and  of  all  the  researen  which  my  circuinstancei 
anil  my  time  permiaed.  1  c.jminenced  and  looiiniied  them, 
will)  Ihe  humble  l.-o])e  o.  exundini;  in>  n-efuliasii  beyond  tho 
iMimcdia'e  .*ptiete  '<l  my  labor^s  iii  the  piil|iii ;  nor  have  I  any 
reason  lo  doubt  that,  in  this,  I  was  u  id-jr  the  i;'<id  ince  and 
direction  of  ibai  Sai.-red  teacinr  by  wlioni  il:e  beiipiines  were 
inspirui.  It  others  icuuitt  ninke  a  bi  iter  book  on  ihe  imfiort- 
ani  Kijisile  in  q'les  ion,  1  should  heaiiily  rij  )ii.-e  in  tluir  d^m^ 
>t.  1  iiave  never  hien  si  vain  ad  to  think  tnat,  in  >hee.\pu!i' 
ti  <n  of  a  book  like  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  so  iniriiisi>:all]r 
diffi  all— so  prolbund— fo  oiten  the  s-ulj-'cc  oi  comni.ntarf 
aid  conlfover.-y,  vty  woik  was  inl'aliiole:  or  that  there 
might  not  bj  room  tor  lU'iCh  honest  difference  --f  opinio  i  and 
exposiiion.  Nor  can  1  conceive  of  any  such  stubborn  attach- 
nieiit  lo  my  own  viuw*  there  express  d,  us  to  be  unwilling  to 
be  convinced  ol  iheir  error,  if  they  .ire  meorrtci,  or  lo  retract 
them,  if  1  dm  convinced  ^li  iheir  eiror.  Whether  the  act  of 
charginjt  a  imnisitr  with  heitey;  of  arrai^ni/j^  liim  for  a 
hwli  c■^^/nfi— vviiliout  a  liiendly  note,  without  u  enri:siian  in- 
terview,  witlioiit  any  attempt  to  cc»/.ri;ice  of  erroneous  inter- 
preintioii— be  the  si-iipiuie  mode,  or  most  likely  to  secure 
the  desired  end,  belongs  lo  others,  not  to  me,  to  deicriiiine. 
1  wuuld  jnsi  say,  that  7  have  not  80  learnt  d  Maiihew  xviii. 
15—17.  1  have  no  reason  to  druid  a  trial,  or  its  tesnir.  I 
mom  n  only  that  ^'Ou/-  lime,  and  mine,  and  that  perhaps  of 
Bonie  hundreds  oi  others,  should  be  taken  liom  ihcdireet 
woik  of  saving  men,  and  wasted  in  irritaiin^i  strifes  and  con- 
tentions. O.I  others,  li0»ve?er,  not  un  myself,  will  be  the  ro- 
Bpon^ibility. 

In  iej»ard  10  the  "postulate"  in  your  letter,  that  f  would 
waive  the  constitutional  rii;ht  of  ten  days,  &c.  I  have  only 
to  Say,  that  it  any  man  fee  s  it  hi-<  duty  to  arraiun  mo  ■  tfore 
my  Presbytery,  J  presume  it  will  he  best,  in  the  end,  and 
most  sjlistactoiy  lo  all  parties  co.icerned,  that  ihe  principles 
and  ru  es  01  the  Book  of  D.s.-ipiine  be  formally  adhertd  to, 
and  that  it  is  not  my  purpos-  ti)  make  any  further  concession. 
1  am,  «&c.  Alczkt  Babnes. 

Rev.  Giorge  Junkin,  D.  L). 

Moderator.  What  notice  is  to  be  taken  of  these 
pa  pert!  ? 

l)r.  CuYLER.  I  understand  this  as  forming  a  part 
of  ihf  It  Slim- ny. 

MonERATOR.  Let  it  lie  recorded  in  the  minutes, 
tliat  ii  letter  iVom  Mr.  Barnes,  admitting  hinl!^i-lf  to 
be  the.  author  of  the  Notes  on  the  Koiuuns,  was  pro- 
duced and  read. 


96  TRIAL   OF 

The  next  slf  p  is  lo  hear  the  orij^inal  parties. 

[Sjiioil  lore  look  si  rt'cees.J 

AlitT  iffi  pp,  Syn;  d  iif^mn  met. 

MoutRATOR  Are  ihe  ori^inul  parties  in  this  caueo 
both  It  H   V  lo  be  lieiinl  / 

Dr.  JiiNKiN.     The  Hppel!;int  is  rcndy. 

MoDi.RAioR.    If5  llie  aj  pellee  ready  ? 

(No  ;iiis.\er  heiiijf  jiiven,) 

V\  ill  SyiiOil  i>.«ue  u  c.ilation  for  Mr.  Barnes? 

Mr.  V\  liNCHKSiEK.  I  move,  ihai.  lie  he  rited  to  ap- 
pc'ar.     L»i  him  have  a  fair  chance  lor  jusiice. 

Dr.   M'Do\VKi.L     1  phould  like   pcaiie  hrcthcr    to 

f)oiiii  out  a  claii>«!  in  our  liook,  which  eiilier  express- 
y,  or  by  implicalion,  avilhoriger  bu«  h  a  Ften  at  the 
present  sia^re  of  the  tiial,  after  llie  accuecd  liap  put 
in  hirf  appeal  and  complaint  to  the  General  AKtembly. 
If  it  ip!  in  the  huok,  I  ^lloul(l  like  lo  know  wliore. 

MoDK«ATi.:R.  It  is  compcleiil  lo  the  Synod  lo  issu9 
a  eiialion  at   :ny  stage  ('I'lhe  trial. 

Dr.  CiiYi.t'R.  A  ciiaMon  is  unnecessary,  unless 
there  be  an  express  la  w  requirinff  it.  Mr.  Barnes 
ha^  laid  in  a  declaration,  rejeciin^  the  juri-^diclion  of 
the  court  :  a  citation  would  ne  wliolly  useless. 

Dr.  M'UowKi.u.  1  suppose  the  rcfrular  course  will 
be,  lo  hear  the  appellant  lirst ;  then,  when  iiC  ia 
ihrouich,  call  on  Mr.  Barnes  to  rejily.  If  he  is  silent, 
you  then  proceed  as  il  he  had  replied. 

MoniRATOR.  The  Moderator  has  thouglit  if  pro- 
per lo  call  on  ihe  jiarties  to  say  if  they  are  reat'y. 

Dr.  GitFE.N.  I  sup|)ose  we  ai  e  to  dispose  ol  llie  sev- 
eral charj^t^s  against  Mr.  Barnep.  seiiulivi.  When 
the  appellant  shall  have  jrone  ihrou":!!  his  first 
charjre,  the  appellee  is  to  have  an  opportunity  to  re- 
cpond  ;  and  he  must  respond  then,  or  never  ;  lor  wo 
are  lo  vote  on  the  charges  in  order,  and  say  whether 
they  have  been  su.-tait!t(l  or  not.  1  thtnk  the  most 
orderly  course  is  lo  tiie  him.  The  book  directs  ir.at 
repeated  citations  should  if^sue  in  similar  cases:  and 
if  Mr.  B  irnes  ilisolieys  the  citation,  we  have  thea 
done  what  we  could. 

Dr.  Cathcart.  Will  our  ritnf  ion  be  constitutional, 
unless  we  allow  him  a  certain  lime ? 

Mr.  Wynkoop.  Sup|)ose  he  is  not  to  be  found?  or 
thai  he  ide.ujjj  that  circumstances  have  detained  him 
from  anpearinii?  ll  )ou  cite  him,  it  will  show  that 
you  admit  a  ciialioa  to  have  been  necessary  ;  aiid  if 
BO,  you  should  have  cited,  before  you  read  the  icsti- 
motiy. 

Di.  M'DowELL.  If  this  ci'atioa  is  intended  fo  pre- 
pare the  way  for  dealing  with  Mr.  Barnes  as  conlu 
macioiis,  then  here  is  a  new  crime  charged,  and  he 
liae  had  no  notice  of  ihe  charge.  You  can'i  tlo  it : 
unless  you  allow  him  ten  days  on  the  first  citation; 
and  litis  will  be  the  first.  You  have  as  much  right 
now  lo  go  on,  as  you  ever  will  have. 


MR.    BARNK». 


9T 


Mr.  R.  Breckinhidgi;.  This  motion  i.-"  not  mine; 
nnd  I  liiiv«;  liui  III  lit-  \o  s;iv  iipun  it.  I  am  no'.  YA'iWoun 
ill  liivor  oft  tie  ciiuiii)ii :  nor  hiii  I  o|)po^(  d  to  it  ; «  iilier 
course  v/iil  Ix-  orderly.  We  do  ii>>i  k  ej)  in  mind  the 
disliiielioii  lori'ed  on  u^  liy  tht;  dith'cultit  r-  i\I.mIi  liavo 
been  c'lniiiioiilly  llirown  .urof^p  i  or  palli.  W  e  nayr 
hear  Dr.  Joiikin,  and  lie  i;idill<Tent  ulnilicr  Mr. 
Brtriie."j  IS  prepK'iii  or  iil)i?iiii  :  or  we  maj  no" if)  him, 
that  iinifsp  he  ap|»e..rs  and  rt  spend*:,  we  nliall  pro- 
ceed uitlioiii.  Inni:  or  we  may  i^ive  liim  iioiice  to 
bIuuv"  caii.se  wiiy  a  ri  -iiioii  sliouid  nol,  is.-iif.  It  ia 
aiinisiiiii  to  oiii^  who  if:  I  iMiiliar  wiili  the  k chnii-ali- 
liet;  of  jutiiti  I  jMoceeiliiijjs,  to  t^ee  ihnse  atH'nipt  to 
be  very  ieclmi<"al,  wiio  knoA- noihiiiff  aluaii  liie  mat- 
ter. The  be.-i  «oiirM;  tor  fH-h  a  hotly  as  tlii.s  is  to 
pursue  the  plain  c.our.^e  ol  ••oininon  (-eiite,  and  not 
incildle  Willi  leelinicaliiies  at  aM,  nnie-^  v\e  have, 
»ludied  ine  wlioN-  ^^ysiem.  Tlio,<e  who  h;ive  .-nidiid 
the  iiif.eiies  ol  liirni,  vtry  well  kimw  thai  in  ninety- 
nine  case-i  uulol  ii  liiiiidred,  it  judicatory  pnrtuin^  i\ 
etraij^ht  forward,  coinmoii  senst  c(  ni.-i,wili.  without 
knowing  it,  liave.  ha  upon  the  very  patli  to  whirli 
tlicy  wou'd  have  been  ii  d  by  the  most  reliiien  and 
Kuliile  technical  rule?.  But  if  jou  eml)arrass  your- 
8elv<>',  by  ifoing  parijy  by  eominon  sens^e  and  pirtly 
by  leclinic.il  rules,  you  will  he  sure  to  i;o  wrong. 
Proceed  either  by  the  one,  or  !  y  the  otiu  r  ;  but  don't 
afienipt  to  mix  iliem  up  togeih'  ;.  In  ordinary  eatee, 
ifii  m  in  eoes  lo  an  upriirht  ma^ii^trate,  who  knows 
noihing  ol  the  science  ol  law,  he  Jia.<  a  eood  chance 
ot'ir»"tim:;  lud  case  properly  decided.  But  if  he  iretsa 
half  bred  couiiry  lawyer,  who  makes  a  iirta  di^^i  lay 
ofle;ral  nicelie.-;,  he  is  hkfly  to  get  the  veiy  worst 
decision  the  world  can  furnish.  The  hoiiesi  magris- 
trale,  with  sucii  Hgoid.-,  is  in  a  likey  v\ay  togetOQ 
out  of  100  of  his  decif'.ions  r«  ver^ecl.  Now  in  ti.ia 
case,  wli.it  says  (H)inmoii  seiiee?  AVhy  it  ^ays,  first 
hear  one  of  tiie  p.iriies,  and  tlien  hear  the  ollii  r;  iitid 
then  proceed  to  give  judgment.  P'irsi  see  il  both  par- 
lies are  present:  if  one  is  not,  then  }ou  can  decide 
whether  you  will  deal  wiiii  him.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain :  there  is  a  setiled  ileterminaiion  in  this  body  to 
dj  souicthiiiic  vviih  mis  case.  I  am  ph-d^ed  to  settle 
it,  in  someway.  I  am  ready  to  a<  quicsce  in  either 
ot  the  various  inethuds  which  have  been  proposed. 
I  am  wiMiM<r  tliat  both  the  parlies  sltould  be  called 
upoo:  if  .VIr.  B.irnes  does  not  appe.ir,  you  may  ei  lier 
go  on  withoui  him;  or  you  may  arrest  tlie  trial,  and 
go  against  him  for  coiiiumac>  ;  or  \ou  may  proceed 
witii  the  cause  and  decide  it,  and  then  deal  with  him 
fur  contumacy.  Your  n  sources  are  al  uiidant.  Dr. 
M-D  iwell  asked  for  :i  pass  ige  from  our  Look  ;  if  he 
will  turn  to  chip.  iv.  seclioiis  11  and  12,  he  will  tind 
the  following:  "  Although  on  the  lirst   citation,   ih» 


98  TaiAL   OF 

((prson  cited  thall  d:T!;»re  in  writin?,  or  otherwise, 
lis  fixt'tl  ileiiTiiiinatioii  nut  to  obt-y  it;  this  derlara- 
lion  f-hali  ill  IK)  c.ti=c  iiuliictj  liit*  juuitaiory  (o  deviate 
ji'Hii  thf  rt^gul  ir  (•(»iirf;c  prosctrifud  tor  cilulions. 
Tlipy  sli  ill  iirociH'tl  ae  if  no  siirli  doclaraijoii  had 
been  made.  Tlie  jji-rson  riled  may  altervvard  alter 
liis  nnnd.  12  Tlu*  liinc  vvhicli  must  claive  between 
the  first  eiiaiinn  of  an  accu.^ed  jierson  or  of  a  wit- 
ness, and  the  m.ermij  of  the  jndieatttry  at  which  he 
is  to  appear,  is  at  least  ten  days.  Bn't  the  lime  ai- 
lotle.l  I'ur  lii-j  appearance  on  the  .tiiljfi*</arut  ciiation, 
is  Irfl  In  l!if  (lixcn-liuri  <if  the  judicalurij :  provided 
nUvaye,  however,  fiiai  it  he  not  h  ss  ilian  is  quite  tiuf- 
fi(  ie.iit  |iir  a  seasonable  and  convenient  compliance 
Willi  the  ciialion." 

Mow  ir,  ill  the  lie<rinninL'ora  eauKc,  the  judicatory 
is  to  pioci  s^d  in  an  ordrrly  way,  even  ilioujili  ilic  ac- 
cu.<'':l  shall  k-ay  he  will  |un>ue  a  disurderly  courpc,  a 
fortiori,  is  ii  riiiht  to  do  ilu-  i-ame  in  a  liiriher  Ptage 
ol'tlie  prociedinj;s,alihouirli  the  acciif-td  niiiihl  have 
paid  1  hat  he  rijeeled  lie  aailnji  iiv  ol'lhe  coui  t.  The 
reapori  hokling.  the  rule  holds,  'i'heoiher  paFpage  I 
read,  direeis,  ihtl  tliouiih  on  the  first  ciiaiion  the 
accused  must  have  tendays,  yet  on  ihe  second,  the 
time  is  Jell  to  llie  disc.(eiit)n  ol'the  judicatory.  11"  lie 
ehall  b-  now  ciieil,  tins  |;art  ol'lhu  rule  willa()ply: 
lor  his  fir^r  ciiaii  m  issued  loiifT  since,  in  the  court 
below.  If  Mr.  Barnes  i.-?  in  the  loun,  Synod  can 
jud^-e  about  ihe  leiiirih  ol"  tim  it  uill  he  proper  to 
ailruv.  Tlie  due  and  iiecosary  time  is  lor  the  court 
ta  judge  of.  The  exact  meaning  of  the  term  "  reu- 
«oM'//;/c","  .ts  ai)p'ied  to  time,  has  never  been  settled 
by  any  court.  Y-ai  musi  decide;  that  lor  yourselves. 
The  case  s  clear  ai  d  open;  aid  it  does  appear  to 
me  that  ike  best  course  wdi  be  to  let  ihe  caufeiro  on. 
Hear  Dr.  Junliin:  then  Inar  Mr.  Barnes,  or  know 
certainly. alier  a  ciialion.  that  he  will  not  a |  pear. 
Then  call  ihe  Pr«'f-b)leiy  :  hear  it:  or  know  certain- 
ly that  ii  will  not  comi-.  Then  appoint  a  committee 
to  reporl  lifresy.  or  no  heresy  :  and  then  say  what 
Bhall  be  done  with  Mr.  Barnes.  Then  take  U|»  Mr. 
Barnes  ami  the  Fresl)yierv  for  coiiiuinacy,  and  do 
what  is  rijhi  niih  boih.  This  seenie  to  me  to  be  the 
pl.iin  c  uirsecd'your  duly. 

MnnKRvr.H  Tht-  question  i.^,  shall  Mr.  Barnes 
nov/  be  ci  c  I  to  appear? 

LT.  J.  ijKt,i;Ki.\iiH;Gf;.  A  brother  has  said  that  this 
is  not  liie  I  one  fur  a  c.iiatloii :  it  appears  to  me  that  it 
in,  and  ih  n  the  ciiation  oui^ht  to  l^sue.  1  have  huped 
against  hnpc  ihat  brolher  Barnes  and  the  Pres- 
bytf-ry  u  ill  both  yiil.l  to  the  ciiaiion  oT  this  Synod.  I 
think,  in  tlie  mean  whd.-.  Dr.  Junkin  ought  to  be 
heard.  You  have  taken  your  i/round;  you  have  re- 
gulvcd  :o  proceed  vviili  the  trial,  and   the  ai>|<cllaQl 


Mil.    BAKNE8.  ^9 

has  besjiin:  let  Iiim  he  lienrd,  riilier  nn  e;irh  r,li:ir?e, 
or  lliroM_'li  (he  wliole  si-i  iL*«; ;  and  ilioii  Icl  Srollur 
Banieij  l>f.  callt'il  on  lo  rccly. 

'J'lie  qiiesiioa  <>ti  t-iiiii:;  Mr.  Barnes  was  now  put, 
and  <le«M  ud  m  ilie  iicLsnive. 

MooE.JA  r<.iR.  bhiill  the  reply  he  to  encli  char>;e,  in 
onler  /  tir  sliall  ii.  lie  to  llie  whole? 

Dr.  CuYLKR  I  tiiovo  i\\i\i.  Ur.  Jiinkin  he  heard 
once  in  clncl :  hut  let  the  Synod,  in  dccidinjf,  lake  up 
the  ch  '.Pires  sfiialim. 

J>r.  Ju.NKiN  s.iid  lie  liiid  a  pevere  cold,  and  that  a 
lahoriou-j  .»nd  eoniinned  [jrofrresw  thronjirh  liie  whole 
lijsf  ol'  c.n.ir^t;;?.  vvithuui  intervals  ol  r»  st,  would  he 
iinpracti(;ahle.  He  said  he  yjiould  lM<e  to  know 
whether  ihere  was  lo  he  any  reply  ;  ht-eause  if  here 
was  to  he  none,  he  would  epuonnze,  ;ind  curtail  ihe 
exposition  ot' the  cfiar^'es  %'ery  itnicii.  He  also  want- 
ed to  knovv  whetlier,  it" a  reply  i-hould  he  made,  he 
would  h.ive  the  ri'.rht  ol'rejui  ider  ? 

Mr.  M'C^LLA  nii)ved  tiiat  this  riirht  he  erantrd 
him,  and  Dr.  Cuhi-ari,  Dr.  Breckinridge,  and  Dr. 
Cuyler  suiiporled  the  motion. 

Mr.  Winchester.  Docs  the  ronstiiution  ;iive  Dr. 
Ju'ilfi'i  'hirt  ri^at?  That  is  a  point  wl.irli  lias  been 
disputed. 

I  iic  n  lestion  was  not  decided:  hut  it  was  aoreed 
thai  tlie  parties  be  now  heard  in  chifll  \V  iiereupoa 
Dr.  Juiilun  ad  lres-?ed  ttie  court  as  IgIIowp: 

The  first  jreneial  remuk  1  have  to  liiake,  relates 
to  the  manner  in  wliich  I  speak.  It  has  been  "requent- 
ly  interrt  d  from  ihe  fact  ol'  my  voluntetririir  to  be- 
come the  prosecutor  in  this  cause,  that  I  have  a 
Flrotii?  |)rt  jniiice  a^^aitist  iln^  party  acc.u^ed:  and  in  a 
larire  pronusi-uous  ast-eitddy.  .^uch  as  this,  iheie  are, 
liotiouht,  many  ;'<:rsons  who  seldom  iiave  hud  tlie 
opportunity  ol"  wiincs5in!r  tlie  pri)cetdini:s  of  dtiibp- 
rative  l)oiii  -s.  and  wim  do  not  consider,  as  ihey  should 
do,  the  peculiarities  of  inaiintT  wliich  ctien  charnr> 
terize  tno>e  who  eomiuct  these  proceed ini2s.  By 
such  persons  I  hive  oil  en  been  niisunder.sttiod,  and 
liave  been  s^^upposed  to  he  speaking  under  ereat  ex- 
citemeiil,  and  iVom  a  very  bad  i-lale  oireelina',  when, 
in  truth,  tin're  was  iioihin^  ol"  it.  Those  wlio  know 
nie,  know  that  I  am  i  i  the  habit  ol  Ihrowinjr  much 
force  into  my  voice  wheiievir  I  speak  in  public,  and 
lliat  I  always  speak  with  mucli  api)areiit  leelinjr  in 
my  maimer:  anil  in  truth  I  cannot  bear  to  hear  any 
man  speak  on  a  suhj-ci  ol"j:reat  in'riiu  ic  importance, 
and  yet  app.-ar  to  i.ike  no  i  iterest  in  it.  Ir  is  n  t  to 
be  inlerreil.  and  I  hope  will  not  be.  Ir^m  the  lad  o( 
the  speaker's  raising  his  voice,  and  evincimr  occa- 
sionally much  warmth  ol' manner,  tha..  he  is  in  a  las- 
Biori.  It'  tucb  an  inlerence  j-hall  he  drawn,  if  will  be 
done  very  unjustly.    1   pray  ihererore   the  Synod,  il 


100  TRIAL   OF 

there  plia'I  appear  any  exriiompnt  in  my  Hierufpion 
ol'  ilitpe  tliartjofs,  lu  coiit-ider  iii>  ix'ciili.ir  hiiluiM  hi  d 
iraiiiiii^.  L)r.  Uanartiul  I'liiaik-iphii*,  ciuiliimfd  me 
uii  iliis  ^ullJt•^•l.  He  lold  me  I  had  two  voictr^ :  one  of 
them  natural  in  lis  time  ;  hiit  tliat  when  1  heeatiie 
exiMied,  I  hid  aiioiher  voice,  whuh  sometnnea 
umount'il  loa  perlecl  Hqiityjj.  [.t  liuif^h  J  I  am  aware 
of  ilie  I'. CI  :  iti5>  my  mielbriuiie.  1  lell  my  home  with 
u  had  colli,  whuh  1  have  «imre  {ireaiiy  increufccd  ; 
und  ihiri  I  lear  will  ai?:,'riivaie  the  evil. 

In  rlH-  (SL-cdiid  |,Uue  I  remai  k  thai  the  object  ofihis 
proiseiuiiun  has  alii-.tdy  been  staled  :  it  was  to  t^t'cure 
union  in  ih--  iruih;  ami  iherei-y  lo  ptcure  anion  in 
anion,  ami  put  an  eiiil  to  the  dispeiipioiis  which  bo 
inn  li  .ilibii  us.  Kor  It  will,  1  trufl  be  nuide  to  ap- 
pear Ihai  ihe  innoviiiions  ol"  doruine  iiilro(lu«"(  d  into 
the  b  lunil.-  ol'  Ihe  Synod  ol'  I'nil.idelphia,  have  been 
the  ;^ie.ii  leadinj;  cmse  ol'  all  ihal  di»ira«Mio:i  in  our 
coini.-i-l;?,  and  ih.it  ext'itcm  lit  ol  i)ersonal  I'et  liii;j 
which  h  i=:  sti  loii'^  aj^itaicd  us  all.  \\  hen  those  doc- 
trines were  fiitt  introduced  amonjr  us.  ilie  memlierH 
of  ilie  Freshyiery  of  I'ldla  lelphi.i,  and  of  ihe  Synid 
of  l^iidadelpiii  i  were  i  iiiladcliihians  ;  ihere  wi:)f.  no 
di.-ir.iciioiis,  no  diversiiies  of  ^5eIltimenl,  which  have 
of  laLe  risen  lo  such  a  heij^hl  as  to  disturb  ihe  peace 
of  Ihe  chur.li,  and  eve  i  lo  ailract  the  |)i)blic  eye.  I 
\v:is  for  several  ^e.ifs  connecled  pt  rsonaNy  wiili  ihe 
Presbvter)  of  Piiiladelpliia  ;  and  when  llieetiife  be- 
{jan  I  w.:s  oiiliued,  Ironi  my  po.-iiion.  to  miii'^le  in  it. 
All  th  il  .-ird'e  ji;ie»v  out  of  iheiincirmes  taujhl  in  this 
BooK  ;  it  exis  ed  indeed  before  the  Book  v\as  publish- 
ed, bill  luvcr  ml  lUcse  dociiiaes  niaiie  llieir  appear- 
ance amonssl  iis.  1  alter  wards  retired  from  the 
lioimds  III  Ihe  Pres' yttry,  Imt  the  same  ddlicuities 
liad  a  rea  ly  pr.  coded  me.  I  was  ihrown  into  con- 
nexion uiili  an  iiif-iiiuiion  for  Education  uhicli  Hood 
grcaily  in  need  of  |)eruniary  aid;  t-ut  in  makiiiff  an 
etibrl  Li>  obiaiii  ii,  t  found  the  chi  ic:tiaii  community, 
ejjpeciaily  m  Phil.idelpliia,  in  such  a  stale  ol  feeliiifj 
thai  in-iilier  ^lde  w  s  dieposed  lo  aid  il.  The  ener- 
gies of  the  church  were  completely  i)aralyped  by 
llie.--e  very  diilii  uliies,  and  1  soon  became  convinced 
thit  the  coiiiiiiii  ms  never  coold  l)e  allayed  suct^ese- 
I'ully,  or  pennancnily,  but  by  set! I  ii>r  ihe  disputed 
iloclii  es  wliiihlas  at  tlie  root  of  the  whole.  Some 
breMir»;tt  aslujd  me  whether  there  cmild  not  be  ellcct- 
ed  an  am  il:iamalioa  of  the  two  Bo  iid?  of  Educa- 
tion: (Hiat  of  ih<!  Assembly,  and  tliar  of  the  Pres- 
hy  ten  ill  Educaiion  Society.)  I  rt  plieil  that  this 
niijjbl  easily  he  done,  if  the  dortrinal  iiitficuliies  could 
be  lemovfd  ;  for  there  was  the  source  id'  all  the  evil. 
V\heiiliis  L>ook  ol  Mr.  B  irntrs  appeared,  it  struck 
rne  mat  a  door  was  now  opened,  and  a  most  favora- 
uble  ojiportunity  presented,    lo  cut  out  a  decision  of 


MR.    BARNES.  lOl 

purely  flo>'liMn;il  puinfp,  apart,  entirely,  from  all  local 
cin  uiiislanc-cs  cf"  t-iril'ti  vvlm-h  liiul  licrrtolore  uhvaye 
beeci  mixed  up  vviili  iheni.  I  bclicveti  Ihui  if  one 
from  H  ui^iaiir.e.  vviiollv  scpar.iicil  iViuii  llie  iiiijcanli--, 
migiil  come  in.  anil  hring  u|)  liie  ;;real  doci  rinalqiiee- 
tioiis  in  a  .«|)i'(  ifie  sli;i|)(!,  .«o  as  to  liavc  a  (li-ci.-i.iii  on 
tlieai  alone,  he  woulil  rtiuJer  an  iniportaril  Rirvice  to 
Ihe  oau,-e  ul'  iruili;  and  lai^lii,  nnder  liie  divine 
bles-siiiL'',  i>e  an  in.strunicnl.  ot'  fjeiiJiiiir  ihc  questions 
ill  contn)V(',r.>y,  and  l.iiereUy  I'esiorin.ic  ihe  church  lo  a 
state  ol"  pe.u;e  and  nuiin,  and  ol'  airayiaii  licr  in  ilie 
beauty  and  glory  ol  licr  true  chararttr.  Thid  is  the 
obje'"l  and  lues^jle  object  ol  the  |)re.sent  prosecution. 
It  Mas  nothing'  to  do  uiili  any  unkind  leelinij  toward 
the  accused.  I  trust  the  whole  course  of  the  pro- 
ceeijiajr  wdl  show  tiiat  notliin;;  like  i>cr£ccution  has 
be;'ri  ii'itcfu!etl,  or  |jr.ic;i.-ji d.  (.'erlaiiily  there  has 
been  iiothii,^  to  deserve  that  name,  thus  far.  1  here 
e.xisis,  I  am  sure,  no  sucii  le^'ling  ui  liiis  Body.  On 
my  own  part  t,nt:re  liad  loi!;^  h-en  a  '.'rowing  attach- 
ment to  the  brother  accused  :  I  have  long  telt  a  kmd- 
Jin;col"love  in  my  bosom  toward  him  ;  and  I  can  truly 
eay.  lliat  since  this  bns.ness  hrst  conuuenceu.  my  de- 
votional rceli!i;j:s  solar  iVi^m  iiaving  l)een  impaired  or 
chilled,  have  rather  been  augmtnted  ;  nor  have  ujy 
Buppli.-ations  tor  any  man  heeu  more  ardent,  or  more 
fr»  q  lent,  than  lor  ihai  hroiher. 

In  the  third  place,  our  ministerial  responsibility, 
the  responsiwiliiy  of  every  one  ol"u5,  in  liiis  nuitier,  is 
oC  fearl'ul  weight  and  magtntude.  Our  labors  are  of 
eiii-.h  a  charai-ier  as  to  hil  the  soul  with  awe  and 
trembling,  and  constrr.in  us  to  say, '"  Who  is  sulHcient 
for  tiiese  things?"  I  knew  sometliing.  as  well  I  trust 
ol  the  joys  as  ol  ilie  sorrows  and  burtlens  of  liie  mi- 
nistry, wl'.'n  1  assumed  the  charge,  and  when  I  lieard 
addressed  to  me  liiese  solemn  words  of  the  Great 
Master,  "  Take  heed  to  llnsih'  and  to  thy  doctrine, 
that  thou  mayest  save  thyself  and  them  that  hear 
thee."  In  view  of  this  resi)on^ii)iuiy  it  has  been  ask- 
ed why.  when  a  (dirisiian  |>  isior  is  laboriously  en- 
gaged m  feedimr  the  Hack  committed  to  him  by  tlie 
g^reat  Shepherd,  and  trying  most  di'igently,  liv  all 
nseans  wuhiii  his  power.!)  advance  llie  cause  o{ 
piety  in  lise  world,  why  lay  such  a  burdt-n  on  him  aa 
IS  nnposed  by  this  prosecmion  7  My  answer  has-been 
already  givt-n.  Let  it  not  be  alleged  that  tliis  step 
was  unnecessary.  Truths  of  vital  interest  lo  the 
cause  of  Christianity  are  here  at  stake.  Oa  ihis  part 
of  the  subject  1  will  ref  r  to  a  passage  which  was 
quoted  belbre  the  Presbytery  v;ith  great  api.lause, 
from  the  writings  of  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  VV  uson,  of 
the  first  Presbyterian  church  in  Pliiladeiphia,  in  a 
note  of  his  upon   llidgetey's  Body  of  Divinity,  p.  86. 

To  impute,  signifies  in  general,  to  charge,  reckon,  or  place 
9 


10%  TRIAL   OF 

to  account,  accordine  to  the  diiTorent  obj^^c's  to  which  it  iaap- 
pied.  'l'iii!>  word,  like  iimiiy  uihers,  has  a  proptr,  and  an 
improper,  or  liguraiive  Mieanina. 

Kirsi  :  h  IS  appliud  to  the  charging,  rtckoninp,  or  placing 
to  Ike  account  o\  pc-rsoiiji  and  iii  ngs,  that  wii.ch  riiuPaRLV 
B.-LO.-^Gs  TO  THE.M.  This  1  coiiHider  as  US' proper  nicuiiiiig.  !•* 
thiri  yi-nst;  tliu  Word  IS  lis.  d  in  the  following  passagt-s  :  "  Kii 
thought  ~hi- (ll-diiti!x\\)  h.id  been  drunken  — liunan  and  Mai- 
laniut),  the  treasurers,  were  counted  laiiliful  — Let  a  in  in  so 
account  ol'  us  as  the  iiiinit^ters  ol  Christ,  and  s'ewards  ol"  the 
mysteries  of  God— Let  such  a-j  out  tnink  iliis,  tliat  such  as 
we  are  in  word  liy  lefers  when  w.'  are  •■l>3Ciii,  s.ch  will  W6 
be  also  indeed  when  we  are  present — I  rtckon  llial  iho  sutler- 
ings  of  this  present  tune  are  not  worthy  to  bj  cotnpartd  t*ith 
the  glory  iliat  shall  be  revealed  i.i  us."  Rjekonin^  or  ac- 
cuuiiiiiii;.  Ill  the  above  in-ianee-s,  i*  no  other  ill  in  j  idling  of 
persons  and  thini^s  accjrding  to  w'kU  thei/  ar<-,  or  aiipair  to 
be.  'V-)  i'lipuie  sin  in  this  sense  |5  to  th.ir^ie  guilt  upon  tho 
guilty  in  a  judicial  way,  or  with  a  vicwto  punisliinen!.  'I'hua 
•Shiiuei  besought  Uavid  ihat  his  iiiii]  my  inight  no',  be  impu'ed 
to  him;  liusihe  man  is  pioi  oun  ed  btssid  to  whom  the 
LiijTii  iniputeih  not  iniqnitij:  ^iid  thus  I'aul  prayed  that  the 
sin  Ol  tliuse  who  deseiteil  hint  iniiihl  nut  be  laid  to  their 
charge. 

In  this  sense  the  term  is  ordinarily  uscfi  in  c  'mmon  life. 
To  iiiiput  •  irtas'in  or  any  other  eiiine  to  a  iinn,  is  the  same 
thiii<;  as  charging  him  with  having  coninutl.:d  i!,  and  with  K 
view  to  Ins  l)eii)t<  punished. 

SeCiindly  :  It  is  applied  to  the  charging,  reckoning,  or  pla- 
cing lo  llt^.  account  ol  persons  and  thing  ,  that  wh  ca   does 

NOT  PROPEHLV  BEL  )NG  TO  THEM,  AS  THOUGH  IT  DID.   'i'hlS  I 

coiisidi-r  iis  lis  improper  •  r  rtguni  ive  intamii^.  In  ihisseiiso 
the  wor.l  is  used  in  the  fo  lowing  passges  — "  And  ttiis  your 
heavc-odeiiay  shall  be  rickjntd  uuio  yuii  as  thuuah  it  uere 
the  Corn  ol  the  thiefching  tl.jor  and  as  t'le  iuln»-ss-  o.  the  wine- 
press—  NV'hcic  ore  hidisi  iiion  ill)  fiee,  and  hotdc^t  iiie  tor 
thine  enemy— li  the  uiicireunici:>ioii  kei  p  the  iij;.  teousnessof 
the  law.  shall  not  his  uiicircmncisioii  be  cou?i/eii  lor  circuin- 
cisiin  — li  he  hath  wronged  ihee,  or  oweta  itite  aught,  j^u^ 
that  on  minf.  accoiinl." 

It  !b  111  this /j^/cr  sense  that  I  understand  ih;  term  when 
applied  III  justilicaii'jii.  '' .Atiiuhnni  believed  God,  and  it  was 
coun^tc/ u'lio  hiiii  liir  r  ghieoM>ne;-s— I  o  him  thai  wo.  keih 
not,  but  beiiev..tii  on  hini  iiiat  j  stitieih  the  ui;g,)dly,  Ins  Idith 
is  co« «.'£(/  lor  righieMiisness."  '1  he  countinji,  or  rt'ckoiiing, 
in  tiie>e  instunccs,  is  not  a  j  .dgiiii;  if  ihnitis  a»'  thiy  are,  but 
as  they  arc  no,  as  rhuvf^li  ilmj  were.  1  do  hot  ihiiik  that 
fciith  iieie  means  the  rig'iie.iutiiess  of  the  iMes.-iah  :  for  ii  i3 
expressly  c  died  '■  Liilicving."  It  means  bi  lievuig.  Iiuvvtver, 
not  as  a  virtuous  exe  'eise  of  the  mind  \v  h  eii  G  .ii  coiisi  nted 
to  aeci-pt  insctad  ol  perfuci  obi  dicnee,  lui  as  having  mput  to 
the  promised  Alcsiiuh,  and  so  to  his  ri^iittousiii.s.-.  as  the 
ground  of  aeeeptanct'.  Jus;ificai;o:i  is  a!-ei;bed  lo  lailli  i.d 
healing  trcqui-nily  is  in  tie  Aov  Te^tuniciit ;  not  as  ihai  from 
which  the  virtue  proceids,  but  as  thai  winch  rece  ves  frotn 
the  Sav.or's  fulness. 

But  if  It  were  a  lowed  that  faith  in  these  passages  really 
means  the  <it>jeci  believed  in,  sill  this  was  not  Abraham's 


MK.    «AKNFfl.  103 

own  righteousness,  and  could  l,e  propcily  covnitd  by  him  who 
jud^TS  (tf  ihiiiirs  as  ilify  are,  iis  I'diiy;  so.  it  was  nckomd 
uritu  him  a.v  if  U  weic  Uw  :  and  the  •  HL-c is  or  Ix  m  Tits  of  it 
weri^  aciuitlly  irii|iarted  tu  iiiin  :  hut  til  is  was  all.  Abiahain 
did  not  hccuine  nit'ri:t>rioii<i,  or  coas,;  t>\)0  iiiiwDrihy. 

•'VVlintisii  to  placi-  our  ritfliteousuc^'jj  in  ilu  obedience  of 
Christ,  (sMyj  Culviii  )  hui  to  allirni  that  hereby  only  are  wo 
accuuiiitd  ii'^hhu-.is ;  bucausc   the  oheJie:ice  ol  Clirist  is  iiu- 

pUtcd  to  us  AS  IF  IT  WERE  OUB  OWN." 

It  is  tinis  a'so  that  1  iin.ler-sijin  i  the  impu'niion  of  sin  to 
Chris'.  He  wa-i  acciiiiiiti  d  in  ihe  divine  ad.iiiiisira'ion  a^- './" 
he  ircre,  or  had  be^  n  the  siiuk  r,  that  liiose  wju)  bclK  Vt-  in  h.m 
niijihi  bea^couiitvG  an  if  Ihe  y  were,  or  had  been  nghrt.()us. 

I  have  quoted  litis  pis^.ti^e  in  order  to  pIiow  lliat 
the  doctniiti  ori.MPu lA I'lu.N  is  one  ol  lln'-  (lef|ict-t.  ini- 
pirtiinr.i'.  He  whu  loindiL's  it,  sliakes  llie  loimdalion 
of  a  sinner's  liofie.  The  e^  |)re.»ioiis  here  (isi-d  liy 
J)r.  Wilson  iiearlv  cuiiicdt-  will;  iho!?e  1  etn|!lii\t'd  iu 
niy  ielier  to  Mr.  L3;iriie.--.  1  luld  liini  ilial  in  .uivuiic- 
i  \g  at-.d  iirniiiuLaiiirr  ilic  seiniineriis  in  Ujis  hook,  he 
elin)-  my  own  hope  liir  eterniiy,  rind  ili-i,  iC  what  he 
tiiiiaiit  VV.I.S  true,  I  eonid  no  Ioniser  '' reail  niy  liile 
cjear  lo  in  in?K>n<  in  the  siiic.s."  I  think  ii  wTll  appi^ur 
beir-Te  vVPrtrnve  (toiit'7TTraT  (Iii=:docirine  orimpuiaiioa 
<loej-,  iji  eriecr,  coiibiiluie  «he  vtT>  Ctsince  of  ihes^os- 
pel  Vet  Mr.  13  irnei  d  n-s  deny  the  inipulaiion  of 
Ad.iin'.-|  j.'uill  10  lis,  and  ol"oiirs  to  Clui-i.  The  doc- 
trine  of  ilie  covenants  is  rtjf-cied:  and  ihe  giimer's 
j  isiificaiion  is  rested  on  God's  sovert  ii.Mity  alone, 
anil  II  ii  on  any  lejial  {iiouad.  Now  I  here  profess 
that  ii  llie  vuarinn.s  sittltrinss  ol' Chri-t  and  the  le- 
jrai  iiiniuialion  of  his  sulicrinirs  and  rijrhieoiK-nesa 
are  taken  fr^ni  umler  my  le>  r.  my  hope  is  <rone  :  I 
cannot  ■•  read  iiu'^ljile  eleiiiiia-iiiuxjtsio.i.ii  ui_Lhu  c.l\k>.''-»*' 
There  i-:  no  tii7'e*iTi  the  matter.  If  ihe  vic.irit>us  f-ul- 
ft^riiiiTs  and  ohediem  e  of  the  Savior  are  not  iru'y, 
pro|)erly,  and  leiraily  iiiijjii/id  to  Ids  people,  po  as  to 
constitute  their  title  lo  heavt-n,  there  is  no  title  in  it: 
I'oriliiti-s  Iheliile.  In  .-itpport  of  this  view  liefer 
the  Sviio  I  lo  the  Eihiical  lleperlofy.  where  the  very 
same,  idea  is  expressed.  I  e.mnot  now  quote  ihe  |)as- 
Kii^e,  hecanse  1  have  not  the  hook  ht  re.  I  have, 
ho^vever.  the  q  i aiiUion-  mat  kid,  for  I  did  anxiously 
>\i-'h  that  iliei'.ause  mi^'ht  not.  he  issued  liere. 

Fourthly,  The  accused,  will,  of  course,  it  is  una- 
voidable, hear  ihiiii^s  said  of  his  book  and  his  0|)iiiioii8 
which  can  1 10 1  be  |. 'lea  suit  to  ihe  feelings  of  an  am  hor. 
This  cannot  be  avoided.  And  I  know,  and  we  all 
ieel,  th.it  no  m  in  can  statu!  Iiy  nnd  !-ee  tne  child  of 
his  bosom  abused  and  his  b  )som  be  unmoved  ai  d  in- 
dirtierenl.  It  cannot  he.  There  is  a  stuif^tn.n  )tarn- 
injrof  llie  heart  over  o-ir  own  oll>prin;;-,  whit  h  cannot 
be  suppressed, whenever  we  liiink  ihey  arc:  rniMis»d. 
And  1  Know  ijot,  to  a  man  who  has  acquired  fa  me  by 


104  TKIAL   OF 

his  writings,  :i  manoChiili  talent  iind  ofilii^  ronromi- 
tnnt  lii^li  reeling'-  wliicli  ht-lonas  in  ii,  whicii  is  crreal- 
iT,  hi.-J  paiodlal  keliiiLf  li»r  Ins  liook,  or  lor  liis  rliild. 
The  accuised  will  ciNiiiiily  luivc  lo  li(!ar  wir.it  caiiriol 
liut  he  ex(tee(liii2:ly  iiaideasaDf.  1  am  happy,  how- 
ever, in  heiM<?  ahic  lo  say  Ihar.  wlicn  I  he  t-aaie  ihiriL'S 
were  in  t:ui)slarice  ullercd  belbre  Ihe  Pres^hytery, 
they  wore  lis'enrd  to  on  his  part  wiih  all  patience 
arid  niaf^aaiiiiiiiiy.  We  had  there  noiiiiiij.''  loroni- 
plain  1)1'.  In  Cict  it  was  rae  oi"  il.e  most,  delightful 
weeks  (  irid  i!ie  trial  la.-ted  a  week')  that  I  ever  pass- 
ed: a  season  ol'  the  \<'iy  highest  ii.jio  n\enl. 

A.S  to  ihe  reaMiii.'-- liir  the  appiai,  J  am  ui  eotne  Iofb 
how  to  i)ro(;eed.  1  heiieve  inc  btsL  way  v\illbe  to 
leave  ii)ai  to  the  cotirl  iipelt'.  TJiey  may,  in  pari,  be 
included  in  the  case  at  ist=ue  hei  ween  the  oriainal  |)nr- 
tie.-'.  They  are  all.  in  Kic.l.rharyes  aj:aii;£-l  ihe  court. 
But  I  i)ass  ovtTlhise.  So  liir  as  i  elates  to  the  ori- 
frinal  parlies,  an  e.vaminaiion  oi"  the  letlinicny  will 
fchow  the  reason.^  ol  ihe  appeal. 

1  have  now  cue  general  riniark  to  make  in  refer- 
ence to  the  ehar^es  us  here  hrnujiht  by  me  acainel 
Mr.  Bifnes.  They  are  f-ysicmaiic  in  tlieir  orUer  ar.d 
connexion.  It  was  tilhjred  at  ihe  trial  in  tl'.e  court 
below,  that  they  exhibited  nt-.M-ks  of  hasre  and  want 
of  systematic  urran:jen;ini  :  hut  this  ip  a  niisiaUe. 
'When  1  prepared  ihem,  I  first  took  Mr.  r>arnes'd 
book,  and  noicd,  as  I  w»'n!  on,  what  i  decn^ed  excep- 
tionable. 1  af.eruards  arraniretl  liies'"  excepiionsiu 
cfi^ses,  in  separate  columns;  and  as  I  proce(  iled  and 
rcllecied  the  v.liole,  1  lonnd  tin  in  to  form  a  coirpl.  te 
syslem  ol"  docirine,  a  rc.'uiar  system  of  error.  Ji.st 
as  there  is  a  re?rular  system  in  tru;h.  The  irreal  out- 
lines of  the  system  cmtained  in  our  Cjidi  ssion  of 
Faith,  may  he  sju)mid  up  in  a  lew  words.  It  leacli- 
es  till' fact  ihm  ;;ian  lraiisH:r:s.-cd  the  law  ol  God; 
lliat  he  did  il  as  a  t;t}veiiani  In  ad.  and  iliai,  his  act 
extended  to  his  posicriiy.  As  soon  as  In-  ciiimtd, 
guilt  l.iy  on  llie  Irans^iressor  hitnself,  and,  according 
lo  the  principles  ol  rrprescntaiioii,  the  samejjuilt 
exiendt-d  u  ail  who.n  i:e  represenicd.  Adam  v\a3 
the  moral  h'  ul  of  his  race,  and  all  his  mendjers  were 
idem i lied  wuii  him.  Jesiis  Chritl  is  the  second  Adam, 
lie  stood  as  ihe.  Head  cl  another  t-'re.-.t  moral  b'uly, 
and  Ins  obedience  and  sullerinsr  brina  hisiace,  in 
like  m.mrier.  under  the  juslityinj^  senence  of  the  law 
and  !n-,i!:e  tln-m  liijhiious  t>y  i.-npuialion.  This  is 
our  system.  But  ihe  system  hi  this  hook  denies  ini- 
putanon,  denies  ih  it  Adam's  pos'erity  are  liable  to 
punisiimenl  lor  his  sin:  tiiey  mu?  i  be  siimcr.?  Ihern- 
eelves,  before  tiny  arc  Ii  ibie  to  any  evil  as  a  punish- 
m'Mit.  !S(Hlial  boih  Adam  and  Clirist  siaiul  alone. 
The  ri'zliieousness  ol  this  st cond  Ailam  is  not  im- 
puted lo  his  seed,  any  more  lliau  Adam's  oUcuce  IQ 


MR.    BARNES.  lOS 

his  seed.  ClirisI  diJ  not  bear  the  lnjal  consequencea 
ol  their  sin  — lie  w.ik  not,  hrgally  f-peiikin<r,  puiiirthed 
lor  them,  'i'lis  ia  ihe  t^yHtctn  t<iu:ht  in  iliis  hook. 
There  ure  pome  ini'i|)ieiii  chctrjjeH  orBrniiiier  ronii>ar- 
aiiv^e  coiiPequeniMi ;  .md  il'  uhstrjicletl  honi  the  rest 
and  considered  in  tiieni^elvt's  ali>ne,  would  noi  he  ea- 
tislactory  proolOrhcretie.ul  opinion  :  yet  when  taken 
us  pans  of  llie  evidence  toi^eiiier  witli  llie  oiiiers, 
they  lorni  a  connected  chain  of  evi  h-nce,  wiiicli  in- 
cre  iseri  as  we  advanct-.  One  position  impMet*  ano- 
ther, and  the  const  (piencos' then  tijNow.  So,  in  view- 
iiiir  some  of  these  iliarjjces,  they  may  a|)pear  ot"  iiilia 
compirativ't;  con^eqn  nee,  until  we  re;,ard  their  rela- 
tion to  the  eniire  pvptern.  I  nn\  now  ready  to 
proceed  witli  the  eh  ir^es  themKelvcd.  and  there  are 
three  quesi ions  to  he  asked  on  each,  viz:  1.  Are  the 
words  ajletied  to  ruiitain  error,  in  the  hook?  not 
whellier  they  do  coiiiaiii  trnlli  or  falsehood:  laitare 
they  liiere  ?  2.  Are  tiicj  con^ietent  with  the  Conies- 
pion  of  Faith?  And  3.  Are  they  lonsistent  with  the 
Bible  ? 

diarize  1. 
Mr.    Harfies   teaches  "  tiiat  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary 
action." 

The  first  passairc  I  eliall  qiote  in  proot'  of  this 
charge   i.=j   fron)  Mr.  I3a.'-.ie<^'ei  Noi.ei;  on  the  Lomane. 

P.  219.  "  in  all  this,  aad  in  all  odier  ein,  man  iii  volun- 
tary." 

Here  in  lan'^uaire  loo  plain  to  he  mirsnnder.slood  or 
cxplaiiied  away  :  it  atli.  nis  the  very  point  to  ^*<i  pro- 
ved. 

My  ne.xi  proof  is  from  i)airi;  123  of  the  same  work: 

••Tbeie  is  no  rciicon  tu  htlieve  that  liiey  [men]  are 
condcviTi'd  In  eterniii  deidi,  or  held  tu  be  jr  .il'y  »t'  hi  sin 
[nieniiiig  Ad  .iii's  sii']  wiitioiii  p.Triitip  iiion.  of  ih'  ir  ovvn,  or 
without  personal  hip,  any  niorn  ihaii  tl.yt  li.ey  n'-e  yppravrj 
by  the  work  of  Ciirisi.  nr  liilJ  to  be  pcrsoi- ally  d» serving, 
withou.  embracing  Ins  ■■fl'.r,  and  receiving  hnn  as  a  Savior.' 

Here  is  !i  distinct  (ieuia!  of  me'i'.-:  ii-.bility  to  pu- 
nishment until  actual  bin  siiull  occur:  hiuI  here  is  iho 
urguiiieni,  lor  it :  aciii>ii  in  the  one  c  it^e  is  a.-"  neces- 
sary as  acuon  in  the  other:  so  that  it  th»-re  i.^  no  ac- 
tual s  .!,  there  i-  in)  liabiliry  to  punishnieni,  no 
cX|)'K-^eilne^s  to  eierial  death,  im  pindshiin  nt.  no 
rondenni  iiion.  Before  any  thing  of  tins,  there  must 
be  voluntiry  personal  action. 

The  ariTuinent  of  the  above  qiotat  ion  is  borrowed 
from-  Ptdai;iu.<— not  indeed,  I  suppo.-e,  imniethaiely, 
but  really.  It  is  his  prt-cise  argument,  and  how  near- 
ly in  his  words  you  snail  jud^-e.     Pelaguis  sa)s: 

"If  Adam's  sin  hurt  thosi  who  are  not  i.'uiliy,  the  riuhfc- 
ou^'ip-ss  of  Christ  protits  those  who  believe  not." — MUner 
k.  3:0. 

9' 


106  TRIAL    OF 

The  only  t'jlTi'r«»nce  between  this  arj^nmerit  nnd  Br. 
Barnt  s's,  is,  ihat  it  is  more  iminred  and  pilhy,  he- 
c.uHi'  lef;.-=  ImrdeMcd  wiih  vcrhiajrc.  li  is  ihe  t-^tme 
precise  iirrmiii'Mt.  Nnw,  niiirhi  not  a  Prt'shyU'rian 
iniiiisiMT  tn  he  iilarrm  d,  when  he  (irids  liiinsrll'  inad- 
verremly  (ii'i'  so  t)e)  n.-iim  ilie  t:aine  arirnnienl  with 
an  aoUiowifdired  herein-,  ami  liir  Ihe  same  piirpoHC  ? 
Cm  any  ihin??  pos-ihiy  prove  mure  ronehisively  unity 
ol  (toclrine  ?     But  1  have  more  of  the  !<ame: 

"  IIdw  can  a  mnn  be  c  insi'lfri'd  siiilty  by  God  of  thai  sin 
which  he  knows  not  to  be  Ilia  own  ?  for  iCit  is  necessary,  ii  ia 
not  his  owii ;  Inn  if  li  is  his  own,  ii  is  voliini  iry  ;  and  if  volun- 
tary, I'  ••iin  i>e  avoided."  — /•'../a^'tKs,  as  quoted,  Bib.  R  p.  vol. 
ii.  p.  102. 

My  third  proof  is  from  pai^e  192  of  the  same  ivorU  : 

V.  19'2.  ''  ■'  rhcy  [J  icoli  and  E.-an]  had  done  no'hing  good 
or  bad,  and  where  th.ii  is  ihe  c:ise  iliere  cap  be  no  churacier, 
for  cliaracii  r  is  iho  result  of  conduct. 

(2)  That  ibe  period  of  moral  agency  had  not  yet  commen- 
ced." 

Here  was  no  moral  action,  and  therefore  no  ein. 
Th'.'  iloivvr,  Mu;  vohinlary  a^Ljency  is  ntcess-ary  to  cha- 
racter.  Prior  to  ihi.s  ihi-reisno  sin  toexpo.se  to  pun- 
ishment. VVlieii  ihis  voluntary  action  o  curs,  it  will 
be.  he  riiiuiis-,  t-inl'ul;  and  then,  but  not  utilil  ihen, 
are  they  sini'.ers. 

My  (ourth  proof  i?  from  pasre  121. 

P.  IM.  "A3  the  work  of  Christ  dot  s  not  benefit  the  race 
urdt  ss  li  is  eiiibrared,  si  does  not  the  rea>oiiin^  of  the  Apos- 
tli^  lead  ns  to  ;he  collciu^i  )n,  iliai  the  deed  of  Adam  does  not 
condenm,  lodi  ss  thtro  be  some  vo.untary  act  on  the  part  of 
each  individual '?" 

T!iis  is  tiiniost  the  lan^uaffe  ol  the,  rl-nr?c  iieelf 
One  of  these  fortns  of  CNpreftion  conviys  the  iiiean- 
in^r  of  t!ie  author  in  the  very  eiroiigesl  iiianner, 
wliftiier  i:eiiaiive  or  positive. 

"  If  Adam's  sin  hurl  ihcise  uh'>  are  notgui'ty,  the  righteous- 
ness of  Clnisi  pr'dii:*  itiosc  vvlu)  believe  not." 

I  have  placed  tiie.'^e  la.^t  two  quolaiions  in  jd  *<lafO- 
aili  11,  ihiit  th4-ir  i^uhsiamial  idtiiiity  mi^ht  he  i-ct  ii  ut 
ft  jllaiice.  The  ri;.''hieousne5:s  i- 1  Clirisl  does  not 
prolit  tlie  sinner,  tn.iil  he  lulieves,  i-a\s  JNIr.  B., 
therelore  tlic  si:i  (d  Adam  (hie?- not  hurt  the  sinner 
tiniil  he  voluntarily  trati.si;re.--.~es.  The  docirme  of 
both  is,  il,-i  there  i.s  noli,il)iliiy  lo  |;enal  evil,  hut  in 
con.si  queme  of  vuluntiiry  action  ^  iind  "  priviout-ly 
to  moral  a^incy,  lliere  is  nctliiiiir  in  man  fnothm;? 
moral — no  inoriil  eharac'et  j  hui  thai  ulnch  (jlrul  cte- 
ated    in  hiin." — Pulagins,  iiih.  Rep.  ii.  105.     Ajiain: 

"Chid  en,  inasiimch  as  tlicv  arc  clii'drcn,  iiev<  r  c;in  be 
pniliy,  upiiil  ihiy  li  ivi  done  sonii  ihin<,'  by  ttu-ir  own  putper 
wi  I  ' — Julian,  an  iiitiiii He  Iriei  d  of  Pel.iL'ius,  und  advocate 
of  his  doctrines,  as  quoted  Bib.  Rep.  ii.  103. 


MR.    BARNES.  107 

My  fiflli  prooi  is  from  p.  118. 

P.  118.  '•  Men  will  not  be  held  jiuilty,  unless  tliere  is  a  law 
which  liiniis  llu'iti,  of  wliit;li  ihcy  are  a|)pnstd,  and  which 
Ihey  vuluntanly  u-- nsmeas." 

On  tliirf  point  I  rcCtT  the  Synod  to  the  Bil)Iic;il  Re- 
pertory, 2,1  vi'l.  pii<fe  lO;]. 

Juli.iM,  ill  lii:*  last  woik  against  Augustine,  charpes  this 
father  with  holdin<:,  "  that  infants  were  oppressed  with  the 
guilt  of  no  snt  of  their  own,  hut  only  wiili  that  of  anoihor 
person."  Aaain  he  say=,  "whotver  is  aceuserl  of  a  crime, 
the  chirge  is  made  aaainst  his  conduct  an  I  not  ajrainst  his 
birth."  ♦  ♦  »  And  a^ain :  '"Children,  inasmuch  as  ihey 
are  children,  never  can  beyiiiiiy  miiii  ihey  iiave  done  some- 
lliini  Ity  iheir  own  pr(iper  wil\."—Uib.  Jicp.  vol.  i'.  [>.  1J3. 
i  liui.i  lii!re,  toavoiil  ttiis.ipprelieti.sioii.  tlie  Teiierii!  re- 
mark :  thitt  it  id  nit  nece.-jsary  to  ideiiiily  Mr.  l^i.'rf  i^en- 
tinieiils  with  all  ilio.'^eorPfiiigiu.?,  so  iiir  as  1  havcac- 
cusi'il  iiiin  ol  niaiiitaitiiri'^  Pelasrianism.  I  quote  this 
to  pIiovv  liiat  lie  lias  set  liits  loot  on  Pelagian  a  round, 
and  tliai  illie  hdld.-j  it,  lie  must  {j:o  onward.  lie  can- 
not slay  lliere.  He  is  in  danger  of  tiillin;i  inio  oilier 
cogiiaie  errors.  1  hold  up  his  error  in  liiis  point  as  a 
beaco!!  of  warnitiL''  l)etore  his  eyes.  It  is  imi  to  prac- 
tice what  has  been  denoininatt  tl  l\\e  udiinn  t/itvlo- 
picunt :  no  :  hut  it  is  to  warn  my  l)roiher  of  where  he 
ia  ii"oiiig.  I  (io  not  ciiarge  hrolher  Barnes  wiih  heinjr, 
as  yet,  a  Pelagian,  hut  I  say  that  he  holds  a  doctrine 
which  is  ihe  h.tsis  of  ihe  sy.^lem  ol  Pelagius.  1  know 
that  hrolher  Barnes  is  very  far  from  being  a  Pclagi  .n 
in  sniiny  points;  but  on  tins  poiui,  he  and  Pela;;iua 
exacily  coincide ;  tliey  hoUl  tiie  selt-sanie  doctrine, 
and  support  it  by  the  same  argument. 

We  have  now  proved  that  the  doctrine  chnrged  ia 
contained  in  the  laiiHuage  of  the  hv!,ok,  and  have 
shown  the  coincidence  of  this  original  position  witli  a 
so  ooi  of  error  wiiich  spread  deeoluiion  over  the 
church  of  God. 

And  no  v  to  compare  this  with  the  language  ofour 
Btardards. 

Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  vi.  5.  "This  cbrrnption  of  na- 
ture, dining  this  li  c,  doth  remain  in  those  that  are  regene- 
rated ;  and  ail  hough  it  be  through  Christ  pardoned  and  mor- 
tifiid,  yet  both  ihe\f,  and  all  the  moiiuns  thereof  arc  Iruly  and 
propcrlij  sill."  6.  "  Every  ^iii,  both  original  and  actual,  be- 
ing a  ti.-insgrrssion  of  the  rii^liieoiis  law  ol  God,  and  contrary 
thtitunio,  doih,  in  its  own  nature,  bring  yuilt  upon  ihe  sin- 
ner, whereby  he  is  boim  1  over  to  the  v^ratli  of  Gjd  and  cursa 
of  the  law,  and  ?o  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries, 
epiriiual,  temporal,  and  eterna'." 

Larger  Cat.  tiues.  27.  '"  We  are  by  nature  children  of 
wrath,  bond-slaves  to  saian,  and  justly  liable  to  all  punish- 
ments, in  this  w.irld  and  il.at  which  is  to  come." 

Shorter  Cat.  19.  ''Al'  mankind  by  their  lall  lost  commu- 
n  on  with  God,  are  under  his  wraih  and  curse,  and  so  made 
liable  I )  all  ihe  nnstriesof  this  li:c,  to  death  itself  and  lo  the 
pains  of  hell  forever." 


108  TKIAL   OF 

On  thrpe  a  remark  or  two:  I.  Thip  rorrnpfion  of 
naliiro  is  «if  7/.sv//  ^in.  "  nn  \v«ll  an  ull  tlie  iiioiione 
ihfrcKl,"  2.  Tliis  I'ornipiioii  dl'  nature  wliicli  i8  tin, 
doili  ill  its  out!  imiiirt'  hi  inir  ;:uili  ii|'<  [i  the  t-innt-r.  it 
iti  not  Kuici  his  voUmtai  y  iicrioii  alone  l>riii*:8  guilt,  hut 
thr-ir  liiil  phicfd  liifiu  iiii.ItT  his  wraiii  ai'.il  cnriie. 
uiid  <  xposi'il  U;t;  11  Id  (It-aiii  ami  lifji  I'ort'ViT.  No  I 
Ea>  e:  Mr.  B.,  ;iii  in  iikiiul  are  tint  ui  dtr  liis  wi  atli  atid 
rur.'-e  hy  their  I. ill;  liji-y  nuiBi.  Iii>t.  act  voluntarily, 
and  liit'ii,  but  not  nil  ilieii,  are  lliey  liable  to  tlie  puina 
ol  hell. 

Coi.fii'-ion  nf  Faith,  chap.  x.  sec.  1.  Ail  tlioFC  whom  God 
haih  pitd^.^iinai.d  iiiU'>  liie  ami  thoso  only,  lie  is  |i!f!jtf.d,  in 
his  a|  point  d  arid  u<c('piid  tiiin',  tflcctiinlly  to  call  t>y  his 
word  jiiid  .Sj.irn,  um  nfiiiai  stine  of  siii  und  dtnlh  iii  which 
they  arc  tiy  nature,  to  ciace  and  siidv.iiioii  hy  .lesus  Cliri^t ; 
cuiiiihioiii.  ^  Uuir  in  nds  i^piriiuiil  y,  and  savinij;ly  to  undet- 
Bland  the  tiiini;.'' of  God,  inking  away  tlu  ir  he  irt  ol' tlune, 
and  j;ivii){r  ujito  ihciii  an  htbit  oi  llcsh,  niiewiiii!  their  wills 
Biid  by  Ins  idniigniy  power  detirnnninsi  tin  in  to  dial  which 
jj  good,  and  t  Hit  liially  drawing  to  JiSns  Christ;  )t(  so  aa 
ihfV  conn-  ino&i  I'lei  ly,  heiiif;  ina.ii-  willint;  by  hiy  jjrace. 

This  shoAS  111  il  .ill  vviioin  God  has  predisiinatpd 
he  calls:  an  I  thai  such  as  coniiniiled  i.o  voliiniary 
ein,  and  yet  .v  e  i^aveil,  were  iiaih  r  a  penieiceof 
death,  ana  if  t-aved,  ari^  tav((l  Iroin  tin:  and  il  so, 
then  ail  sin  dot-y  not  (■.on^is^  ii)  voluntary  action. 

I  will  now  quote  a  lew  scripture  pioole,  and  leave 
this  branch  olthe  charge. 

Epii.  ii.  3.     'And  were  l»;  nature  the  children  of  wrath." 

Uom.  111.  19.  "ihai  all  the  woild  may  bi.coHie  guilty  before 
God'." 

Psalm  Ii.  5.  "I  was  shapcn  in  iniquiiy,  and  in  sin  did  mjr 
mother  coneiive  ine." 

These  pa?saires  cannot  be  turned  a?idf-.  They 
prove  inroiiU'et;ibly  that  man  is  a  !^iIlncr,  iiuit  peinleut 
olaiul  prior  lo  lii-'  vi>| miary  a"ion. 

Tlii-sisone  iieni  of  llie  sysitin  taught  in  ihisbook: 
find  it  will  he  necessary  to  touch  aj;ai:i  the  tuuio 
points  herealter. 

1  will  now  take  up  ilie  secoml  cha.-ge. 

C/inr'^e  If. 

l\Ir.  narnos  tepchts  "ih.ii  AJiiin  (before  and  after  his  fall) 
•was  ignoraiii  of  his  iimral  r. laiions  lo  such  a  det^iee.  that  ho 
did  iioi  know  ihe  coiiM  qui  iicis  of  his  till  would  t,r  sl.oicd 
leach  any  funhtr  than  to  natural  death." 

Under  this  charge  my  prool  is  a  n  te  on  p.  115. 

Proof  1.  No'c  p.  115.  "If  an  inquiry  be  made  he  c,  how 
Adam  would  understanl  li.i.",  (ihe  ihreat<^iiin<;  of  death  )  ( 
le()y  that  we  Jiave  no  reason  to  think  lie  would  iinderfeUiud 
it  as  reft  rnii"  to  any  thinjiz  more  than  the  loss  of  he  as  an 
expression  of  ili<  di.ipleafrure  of  God.  IVlo.-^es  does  not  inti- 
Ittate  liiai  he  was  Itaiiiid  in  the  iiaiure  ol  laws  and  pinalttea 
aud  his  lurraiive  wuu.d  lead  us  lo  tuppu^e  liiai  ibis  waa  all 


MU.    BARNKS. 


109 


that  would  ocrur  to  A(!am.  And  iiidfcd  tlierc  is  llie  liigliesi 
cvid'-nci'  ilic  case  udinits  ul',  lliat  this  w  as  hid  uiidersianding  ' 
vt'it.  For  in  itie  account  of  ilie  irjl'.cllon  of  ti.c  peuiiliy, 
ofler  till!  law  was  viuliitc  d,  in  Goil'a  o>\  ji  irrciprc  aiujii  ot  it, 
in  Gun.  lii.  19,  ilnru  is  sii!l  no  R-luicnce  u>  :iny  liiin'r  I'ui  tlicr. 
''Dust  iliiu  ;iii  ni  d  iiM.ii  dust  fliou  sh  lit  rttiuii."  Now  ii  is 
iikC  eiiib  L-  ihai  Adam  sliou  d  have  ui  dt-r.siood  tiiis  »s  it;  cr- 
riiifr  lu  what  has  b  en  c.ilkd  "  spiii.uv!  di-aih,"  and  lo  '•ttir- 
nal  dtaili,"  w  hiii  ii<itlitr  ni  ihu  thuulunn  g,  ni>r  iti  ihe  ai> 
cuuiit  ol'  ihiniill  ction  ol  the  scniinci",  is  intie  liie  !?lij;hiest 
recorded  ickri-iice  to  it.  fiUu  liave  doiic  yrtat  injurj  in  the 
cause  of  corrxci  i,itti|jictaiioii,  hy  carryiiiw  iheir  notions  of 
d  iciiinal  sni  jeeis  to  the;  •  .\|):ao:ili  .11  of  woids  nnd  ph.ras  8  in 
the  Old  'rcbt.iintnt.  'I'lny  hiivi'  usu  illv  described  Adam  as 
endowrd  «iih  all  tlic  nfiiieiiicnt,  and  possessed  of  all  the 
kiuwltdgc,  and  adoi 111  d  with  ail  ihc  iiuiai  hysi;.-nl  acuiri' n 
and  t^ubiieiy  of  a  inoilem  ihcoloyian.  Tiiey  iiavc  dtemed 
hiiii  qualifi  d,  in  the  verj  infancy  of  tlie  woild,  to  uiideisiand 
aril  ui-eu)>b  iiue-t.ons  winch,  under  a  1  the  ludit  of  the  chiis.- 
tian  leve'aiioii,  still  i'et|  1  x  and  cndtarruiiS  tlie  human  niiiid. 
Aficr  tin  se  atcunis  ol  lliu  endowinei;ts  of  A.dam,  which  oc- 
cupy so  hirj^'e  a  S|.ace  in  tlie  books  of  thcoloiiy,  one  is  sur- 
prised, on  openiii.i  ilie  Bible,  to  lind  how  unhkc  ail  ihis  is  to 
the  simple  s  atiinein  in  Genesis.  AiiJ  the  wniivcr  eaniiot  bo 
suppressed  th  t  men  should  describe  the  obvious  iiif^ucy  of 
t'le  race  as  suptrior  to  its  hisihest  advimcemeni ;  «>r  thai  the 
Jirsl  man,  jusi  ere  iied,  just  lo^jkiii!,'  upon  a  worlu  ot  wonders, 
uiiai  t(u  .luted  wnh  Ltv\,  and  n-ora!  rshMioiis,  and  the  ell  et  of 
traiisgiis.ion.  should  lie  represented  as  endowed  with  know- 
leJt^e  which  four  ihuii?find  years  aiterwanis  it  requited  tho 
idvent  01  tlie  Son  of  G  a1  to  coiiunuiiiicite." 

Ad  111)  iri  licre  repi-eseiiteil  it.«  Itciii;;  ignorant  of 
law  .Mul  ol"  mor.il  uldi^aiioi;.  Tiii;?,  hou'iv  tr,  it,  is 
BM.I,  irf  ri  m  lUer  ol'  small  conci-rii,  ior  iliouijii  il  rc- 
|)resi;iilis  our  lirsl  parent  as  ol'  lull  growth,  >e'.  men- 
Lilly  ignorant,  noliiiiifi:,  111  fact,  In.l  a  larjit;  inlant, 
I'ccliiiij  lii.<  way  to  tliu  Know  lud^f.  ul"  every  il.it. «r,  ut 
lea&t  1)1  moral  obli^aiioii.  Yet  ii,  is  at^keil,  whoa  Ihuin 
i.-i  there  i,i  all  tins  .'  Tiie  Presb\  icr\ ,  in  li.eir  art,  ex- 
plain it  ad  iiieaiiini?  iliai  AJaiiHiitl  not  pos.-ess  all  ihe 
Je.irnin;^  wliir.li  ilie  tlal)!  ins  ini|meil  10  linii :  admit- 
leil ;  l>Lii;  here  i^i  an  atiinnat.on  tliat  he  was  ignorant 
ol  law  ami  ol  moral  leia.ioiii^. 

I  wisli  here  to  ol>setve  that  no  "  chariro  oflieresy 
is  b<icieil"  on  this  1  assoge,  or  <  ver  wjis  On  I  lie  eoa- 
irary,  I  slated  ami  now  ttaie,  that  in  iIsel^<•on^ille^- 
etl  it  itj  a  small  matter,  and  itetiaiies  ilie  liitle  impor- 
tance  l:.iit.icli  to  it,  simply  from  it.s  connexion  uilh 
an. I  preparaiion  lor  niliers  ol'  irreat  in;i  oiiance.  If 
Ail.im  was  ■■  i:.norini  ol'liiw  and  moral  relitiitin.>" — 
if  lie  was  a  lar^e  bat)y,  iljrowii  into  a  s^iianae  world, 
without  beiiijj  tMU. owed  liy  Ins  (."re.itor  with  kiiow- 
led-je,  be.l  in  an  e.xlreinely  limiied  ile^ree — n  he 
knew  nothimr  ;^bout  any  kind  of  .liaih,  hiil  thai  ol'llie 
h'Uly,  ami  mu^i.  .-,0  umlei  suiiiil  the  threatening:  —  llien 
c^l  course  there  was  no  covenaiil  iiJ-ide  with  lim.  He 


no  TftlAL    OP 

could  know  nollun^  ahoiit  forms  of  a  covenant — a 
coveiMiii  ol"  works,  llu;ro  could  not.  |)OPfil»ly  In".  Tliia 
is  why  thia-  cliarj^f.  i.s  ii'iiccd  iicre.  (i  is  n  link  in  liiH 
(•liaiii  olcrror— a  |.rc|iarau)ry  t^\v\)  iDadirtci  denial 
olllic  covenant.  Ami  sn  I  d  niitt  not  it  was  dcr-i^ned. 
Totlii.-  ilie  wriu^r  Iiik  releienc.e  wlien  he  coiniiiaina 
ot'rniMi  "  carr>  in;r  ilieir  no;  ions  o!"  docirinal  enhj'cta 
lo  the  ex|'l  maiion  ot"  words  and  i)iMat^et!  in  the  Old 
Te^tanh;llI."  Tiiiy  islhe  l\;'y  lo  ihe  vvhulc  paragraph 
and  explains  why  ihe  wriUT  has  rollfcled  a  M-nes  of 
Billy  nouoiis.  in  order  to  ridicule  il  e  idi  a  el  Adain'd 
knovvlcdijc  in  inj^  aikciuaie  lo  ui  dcreiai d  li.e  i'Uiuro 
of  a  covenant  and  olf-icriuial  aid  elernal  dealii. 

'I'o  pitow  how  illcoll^isI(  nt  ihe  extract  1  have  (jiiot- 
ed  is  vviih  the  Bi.ile  and  the  ConfcPtriori  ol  Faitii,  I 
refer  you  to  ihe  I'ullouinjj  !la.••SH•;e^;: 

C'lri*.  cli.  iv.  2.  ''After  G>id  had  made  all  other  creatnrps, 
he  made  ninn,  mule  a -l!  I'lii-Euh-,  v\iili  r-.:)'^on.:.t>le  ami  iNoiKir- 
tal  souls,  fndiicil  with  Li:ow  li-<i;.'e,  riL-hieousm  fs  and  true 
holin  bs,  after  Ins  own  image,  havjig  the  law  ol  God  written 
in  their  liearls." 

La r J,'.  Cat.  17.  To  ihe  Eamocflect.  TO  God  .^11)1  did  man 
"  in  II. c  fSl.iie  111  w'rich  he  w;.s  created,"  '"  comaiuni'iii  with 
himself,  iiiFiiiiitiiijj  the  Snbt-a'.h,  iiiteiii  i;  iH:o  a  covenant  of 
life  vnih  him,  upijii  eoiidiiii)n  ol  |Jt?/s 'iiu!,  |iLTi\ci,  arid  per- 
petual oh  (lici  ce,  of  wliicli  the  tre  of  li;e  wa.-^  a  p'ldije."  And 
22.  "  Ihe  c 'V  natit  hdie  i  intle  with  Alain,"  Ar.,  and 
iiieShoiitr  Catechitiiii  12.  "  '>Viien  Cud  h;>.l  en  and  man,  he 
cn:ercd  into  a  covenant  of  li"j  wiih  him,"  &,:. 

Here  merely  i?:  a  reptc  poiitaiioii  very  difleront  in- 
deed from  the  noe^ition  that  Adaai  wui  i;;noraiit  of 
law  and  wftiiMral  rejuiiotis. 

1  would  direct  lloi  titit  ntion  of  flic  Synod  to  the 
manner  in  whicli  Mr.  Ij.irnes  refers  to  God's  pen- 
lence  upon  Ad, mi,  ■■du^t  thou  tirl,  anil  unto  diit-t 
thalt  llioii  return."  He  ealls  ihip  the  tidliclion  vf  a 
penally  up  in  A  lain.  But  how  Adain  learned  l".-oni 
ihi.-i  the  nilure  of  natural  death,  wtiich  he  did  not 
r.xperience  till  tiear  a  thousand  vears  af,erward!»,  [ 
do  tint  see.  W'heii  he  t-ulf^  red  it,  in  his  own  lerson, 
lie  knew;  hut  ihe  Dih'e  reprcHenl.-^  Ad  mi  as  feeiins; 
the  [)  tralvziiii^  eliect  of  moral  death  a:*  soon  a 8  he 
Kinned.  hence  he  tndiavored  to  hide  liitiiFcif  Irom 
tllB  presence  of  Ilie  Aliiii:^lity  :  which  iirifiied  a  defi- 
»;i«n«-y  of  k'M),vleih;e,  alititiaiion  ol  ail'ccii.Mi,  .^u^iji- 
cioti,  an  I  a  seiiso  uf  iuilt  a  8usp',!n>iini  of  lonnn union 
with  hi-' Maker.  Yet  this  b  lok  would  per.-uade  us 
tlut  Ailatti  kne.»'  nolliiiiif  of  the  nature  of  spiritual 
de.iih  from  l!ie  threalenia<r.  I  have  only  this  addi- 
lioiial  remark  to  in  I'o' :  Atl  im,  ace  »rdiir»i:  lo  our 
Cmh't^si  in  ao  I  iln;  tl  ly  Sci  iiituror-:.  was  en  ated  la 
the  iiT)  i^e  of  (>id,  in  ri^lneoiisnesK:.  knowlnlf^i',  and 
true  !..)!aiess.  Yet  Mr  15  irne-  allinnw  that  he  v/aj 
i^iuraat  o)!  law,  and  ol' moral  i  elaiioiic! ! 


MR.   BARNES.  Ill 

What  sTy  (he  Script uroia? 

Ocn.  I.  27;  "  G  id  creuit-tl  iiian  in  bid  own  image." 

VVh  It  H- 1-  this  iiiiMf^t;  ? 

Col.  lii.  10:  "  Ariii  liivo  p'!i  o  1  the  new  nun  whicli  is  rr- 
newed  in  '■<ni)wl..di;e,  al'K  r  ihi-imaae  <>(  him  ihd!  cciiici)  hini." 

Cleiirly  tJiuti  ihf.  inn^-e  ol"  G'nl,  in  ^^lli^•,ll  Aclatii 
w;i->  *Te  itel,  coiiiiisietl  i.i  Ic  inwlfd:^*' ;  \vh.\ievcr  else 
it  inclu  h^il.  ihis  vviirt  ;i   UmiIiu^  I'lMtiirt;  ol'  it. 

Rom.  ii.  15:  •'  vVijich  sliu>v  iliu  work,  of  liij  Idw  written  in 
ihtir  hearts.' 

Wiiiii  is  it  thn.t  Bhews?  Why.  the  law  of  natur'*  ?• 
conir.iiii3iiii,'iiii<he(i  fioiii  thf  rt;vi';ilt'(l  Iiiat  f^i\cnio 
the  Jews'.  VV'lii'n  w.!.-*  iliat  hiw  iiiiprest^Cil  upon  the 
hum  111  tiLMPt?  UiKloiiIittdly  at  it.-?  lir.-t  crc.iiioii,  and 
what  reiiLiiriJi  upon  the  Gontih;  coiit'cicnLe  is  a  dc- 
baped  '\.'\\i'. 

Gen.  ii.  IG,  17  .  "'  At'  tlic  Lord  God  cjnimanded  the  m.;n, 
eayinjf,  Ot  »  very  tree,"  &c. 

'I'liis  reveals  tu  usiho  rovenant  of  work?  ;  hut  I 
waive,  until  we  come  to  Ihut  more  dirocily,  all  »- 
in. irk  upon  it.  ll'  such  a  trans.ir.iion  as  o^lr  Ciiilesj- 
*ion  represents,  ever  tlid  take  plac,<'.,  then  tins  iinpu- 
talioii  III"  i.^norancii  to  Ailain  is  as  uiit:crip>urul  aa  it 
is  uubeoaiiti^  the  wisest  ui"  his  sons. 

Ch'ir^e  III. 
M/  third  charge  is,  that  Mr.  Barnes  teaches: 

"That  nnregenerate  men  nre  ab'e  to  ket-p  the  command- 
ments  and  c^niveri  Iheiiiseivts  to  Gid." 

P.o  )f  1,  ICi  "  Th'.  cirna'  ni'iid.  TWm  h  the  same  ex- 
pression as  oieurs  in  virse  6,  (  o  plnoiieniii  ues  saikos.)  It 
does  not  (luan  the  luind  iisf  it,  liie  iniciltct,  cr  ihew.ll;  it 
does  not  siipijnse  that  ihe  mind  or  the  .^oul  is  phu^ically  di- 
pr.ivt'd,  or  opposed  to  God  ;  but  it  ine.Tn.=;  that  Uic  ininaing  of 
the  thing-!  of  Ihef.sh.  pivifii;  to  thorn  Siipreine  aileniion,  u 
hosii'iiy  10  Gi.)d."  '■  For  !^  "—The  word  (ii)  here  refers  loihe 
niinli'iif  of  tiie  ihinns  of  ilie  fljsli.  It  doi;s  not  nhMii  that  the 
Boul  itistlf  is  not  siil  j;ct  icj  lus  law,  Inn  tliat  the  minding  of 
those  ihiiigs  is  hostdc  to  Ins  law.  'I'lie  .Ap.isile  di-es  not  ex- 
pre^9  any  opinion  aboai  the  iru-inphysical  ability  of  man,  or 
di.scu^s  il.fii  q  icsiion  ,it  a'!,  'flu:  rnioiiiit  <f  Ins  afTiiniaiioa 
is  -Mmply,  that  the  minding  of  Ihcjl  s'l,  the  siiprtnieaitention 
to  its  dn;iat:S  and  desires,  is  not  and  caiiiiot  i.e  siil)ject  to  the 
liwsof  God.  'I'bey  are  wholly  conir.ndictory  and  iireconciit- 
able,  just  as  much  as  the  love  of  falsehood  is  mconsisient 
with  ilie  liws  of  truth  J  as  intetnpiT  ime  is  uicosisieni  with 
the  laws  of  ttmper.i-.ive  ;  and  as  :»d\.ltery  is  ;i  violauon  of  the 
eevcnih  coiniiiaiidin  nt,  L'.ul  whether  the  niaiL  hnn^clf  night 
not  obey  ihe  law  ;  wliethtr  he  has  or  lias  not  ahiii'.y  to  Uo  it 
—19  a  qu.'snon  which  the  apostle  does  not  touch,  nnd  on 
whioii  iiiis  pissage  should  n,.i  be  adduc,  d.  Kor  whether  the 
law  of  a  parncu  ar  sin  is  u'tc'rly  irrcconcileable  wi'h  an  oppo- 
site virtue,  and  wiietlier  the  sinner  is  able  to  al  an.jon  that 
Bin,  an.!  pursue  ■a  difljrent  pf.th,  are  very  d:Hl':cnt  eiiq  nrics. 

I:!  jiol  dubjeci.—}i  \s  nMhi  sulj-ction  to  the  connnund  of 
God.  Tile  niiiidina  of  the  flesh  is  opposed  to  that  law,  and 
thus  shows  mat  it  is  hostile  to  God. 


112  TRIAL   OP 

.\tilh'r  indited  can  6f.— Tliis  !■»  al'solutc  a'.irl  certain.  It  is 
irn|)  'Sail'lt;  ihat  it  A^hnuld  1)l*.  'i'litro  is  the  uiiiiosi  iiialnliiy 
io  reg  ini  to  it.  T'lio  iliiii;29  iire  luiorly  irr«>coiii'ilube.  i;ut 
t!ie  uiiiiDiiima  (liit's  iii>l  mean  liwi  iIik  heart  of  Ihe  ^inll<■r 
mii»hi  lilt  b(!  S'liljeci  loGod  :  or  thai  lii-  sou/  is  so  piivsxiilly 
d»t''-ivtil  lliat  lie  cuiinol  ohyy,  or  ilial  he  iiii<;ht  not  obey 
the  law. 

I'j;).     8.  So  lhcn—\t  fullo.-.-s.  it  IcaJs  It  '.his  coiic!u«ioH. 

'I'tieij  thai  ai-L  in  ihtjic>h.  They  who  .'.rc  imiiMiiwrd  sin- 
ner-', \ri»o  an-  fc'liowiiifi  siipieirt'ly  ilie  (Jtsiu  ?  of  tiie  fl  sh. 
Chap.  v'.i.  13  Tiuise  are  iiieaiil  Ii;to  who  lollow  fljsli'y  iiijpc- 
tiles,  ar.d  diislres.  and  who  are  iioi  led  l)y  tlie  Spini  of  G  .d. 

L'nnnot  pi  ttse  G-jd. —  1  liai  is,  svhile  tlu-y  are  thus  in  iha 
fljbli,  wliiii"  ilioy  ihiis  puisne  llu'  desires  of  a  coiriipi  iiaiuro, 
they  euiiioi  please  G  id.  liji  i'in  nfurois  ii'iilim^  respect- 
iiii;  liioir  ability  lo  turn  fro  n  tins  eouis  •,  and  ptusro  a  eif- 
ferent  inodeol  I  fe.  That  is  a  difioreiit  qiii-stion.  A  child  may 
he  olistinaie.  proud,  and  dieobcditi". ;  and  ichile  in  this  state, 
it  may  be  .-itlirmed  ;>f  bi'ii,  iliat  he  eaiiiiot  ple.i.-c  iiii^  paiefil, 
i?iit  wiieili-ji  lie  iiii;j;ht  hoc  c<nse  tob.;  obytinaic,  and  bicoinc 
oijfdun:,  i:t  a  vjry  d  iT;ri:ni  inqiirv,  a:iJ  t'lo  iw  i  s^sbjicta 
..BiMui'-l  never  be  co.iriuMideil.***  He  (il-ie  simie')  i3  eii^ruefd 
'ill  hasiiliiy  aaain.si  GoJ  ;  and  if  lie  d"e9  n  t  himself  lors-jke 
if,  it  will  be  ^nril-js-,  and  involve  his  sou!  in  all  iIk;  evils  of  a 
personal,  and  (lireri,  and  ett^rnal  waifare  will  ilie  Lord  AI- 
iiii;^lity.'**  Tli!.Ilo'y  Sjiiril  lo  ofioii  represen-ed  asdvvellmg 
in  1  he  hearts  of  (Jliriaiians;  and  the  ineaiiiiiij  is  not  iliat 
there  is  a  pirsojial  or  jJnj-iical  iiidwel  iiiL'  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
but  that  heinflueiiecs,  d.reuts,  and  guides  (;liiiiti  iis,  produ- 
i:ii!<j  meekness,  Ijve,  j'»y,  peace,  loii:.'yiilVerin::,  geiiili  iicsti, 
j.'O.idnes?,  &/;.  The  cxpre-s;oii  ^o  f/irt// ii»  one,  litnotis  inii- 
jiiacy  oi  c  niusion,  e!uI  rii'/iiis  Hint  those  things  which  are 
tlu:  iriiiis  '  f  the  Spirit,  Hie  pr.jJueeii  in  liie  htart." 

i'n.of  2,  p.  108.  •'  rl'c  icere  yd  wiihoiU  slrcnqlh.  "Tho 
word  hci"  used  (a«lheiiooii)  is  usudly  applied  to  ihosc  who 
nre  siek  and  feeble,  dtpiived  ef  stiviiyth  by  disease.  Matt. 
XXX.  3S;  Liike  x.  'J  :  Acts  iv.  9,  v.  15.  Cut  ii  is  also  used  in  a 
wcTrti  81  DSC  to  denote  iaabiliiy  or  lCL-b!enL.'S  with  regarJ  to 
any  uttdertakiu^' or  duty-  Ileie  it  iiRaiis  that  iliey  w»r<.t 
wiilioiit  strtniiiU  in  regard  to  the  case  uliick  the  Apoalle  iro-t 
conjiidcring  ;  ihil  is,  we  had  no  power  li;  devise  a  setiame  of 

ju-siificaii to  mskv,  an  aionetniiii,  or  to  i.-ul  away  ihe  wrath 

of  God,  &.e.  VVhile  nil  iu.jie  of  man's  being  aawd  by  any 
plan  of  his  own,  was  th--n  taken  nwaj';  wh.lc  he  was  thu.s 
lymj^  c.vpustd  lo  (liviiie  .j'is!i;:e,  and  (Impendent  <iu  the  Miero 
mercy  oi  Grd  ;  Cod  provided  a  plan  which  met  the  case,  and 
secured  his  saivutioti.  The  remaik  ot  the  Jiposile  lieio  has 
re:eie'.ice  or.li/  lo  the  coiidiiion  of  the  case  btfure  the  atone- 
iiitdt  wac  iii.ido.  It  does  not  pertain  lo  the  ques-tion,  whether 
man  has  slr-.tigtii  to  repent  and  believe,  now  thai  the  atotic- 
iiitnt  is  made,  uhieli  is  a  very  o'idereiu  itiquiry." 

Oi'forc  proceeding  in  the  mutierol  this  ch.ir;2:e,  nl- 
low  me  lliree  oh.-orvatioiic.-:  1.  li  is  possible  to  tench 
error  by  (lenyiu^  ihc  Iriith — lo  tiike  sivvny  sound  doc- 
lri.i!i  jiosilit^ely,  by  n.  scrjiis  of  deuiil  iu  ilie  negative. 
e.K  gr.  CerlJiiu  texts  ol  sripuirc,  say  twenty  in  num- 
ber, have  been  depended  oa  to  prove  the  doctrine  of 


MR.    BARNK8.  113 

the  trlnify.  I  wish  lo  reject  (hat  doctrine  and  yet  do 
not  foel  It  to  l»e  priulenl  to  do  it  openly.  It  may  be 
done  more  6a;:cescrully  and  salely,  ny  ilenyiiijj  in  the 
detail,  that  it  is  taugiit  in  any  ol"  (.liesc  pas-sa^cp.  I 
put  a  jrlosH  upon  ilic  passa:;e  wliiiii  coniains  a  his- 
tory of  Ciiri.si'd  Uaptisiii,  and  corioludo  oy  Fjiyin*, 
whatever  may  be  the  iruih  or  falL-ehood,  ul'  the  doc- 
trine ol'  the  trinity,  it  is  noi  lau^Lt  hern.  I  take,  up 
the  words  used  at  bipiisiin,  "in  the  nam;;  ol  the 
Father  &c,"  and  j^lo.ss  over  and  conclude,  that  doc- 
trine has  no  h)uu('aiion  Atf/(?.  And  so  tlirou^ihoiit  ihe 
whole.  H  ive  I  not  really  donied  liie  dociri:  e  of  the 
trinity  ?  And  yet  I  have  not  in  any  one  insiHnce  paid, 
*  It  Id  not  true — it  is  not  t.mglu  in  llie  Biiile.'  Is  there 
a  more  etl'ectual  mode  of  ititackitiir  irurh  than  ihie 
partizan  war  ;  tlian  this  slow  method  ol'  insulated 
as.^auli  ■? 

But  then  it  will  !)e  salt!  in  reply,  "  I  have  only  re- 
move.) certain  texts  whic.-i  havu  been  u^uady  sup- 
posed to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  saircr's  inabiiirv," 
thtire  are  yet  scores  of  ollu-rs  lett.  Very  true,  but 
the  s.ime  process  may  takeaway  the  rest.  Now  rcy 
pusinon  is,  that  wliea  a  writer  displays  a  di^poi•fion 
to  take  away  the  s;riptiirc  jirops  i'roai  any  doctrine, 
it  is  evident  he  dislikes  the  doctrine  itseif.  Just  so, 
the  labor  expended  in  the  atit<ve,  to  evmce  that  the 
doctrine  <.d  man's  inahiliry  i.«  not  taught  ia  ilicsr  pas- 
Baijes  of  SCI  ipture  evinces  a  dislike  to  it  and  I  quesiion 
the  possibility  of  any  intelli;^enr.  mar;'s  re'idi.ii>- tiiem 
careiully  over,  without  imbibing  tin-  conv'ition,  iroru 
the  niiral  evidence  in  iheni,  ihat  th'  ir  writer  was  an 
advuc.aie  of  human  ability.     And  yet, 

2.  This  is  the  only  cli  irj?-e  in  which  [  have  felt  any 
hesitancy,  as  to  tiie  adeijuacy  ol  ih^  prool^ — not  of 
course,  as  lothe  reality  and  verily  ol'ti  e  ciise,  (fjr  I 
have  u)  d  )idit  Br.  B.  holds  thi;  comuion  do(  irme  of 
hu  n m  ability  as  (bund  in  the  EasiJ  but  as  lo  thepos- 
a'jiliiy  of  irivin:r  it.  t.m^ihle  form. 

3.  Nothing  is  set  furih  in  tins  chsrire  but  (he  dnc- 
trlue  I  hat  men  are  aide  fo  tn.ike  (hem  new  hearts 
and  (o  live  accordingly.  It  is  as.sunicd  ;is  an  obvious 
truth,  that  il  m:.'n  are  able  to  come  ni.to  CuJ,  iii  the 
first  m.srance,  they  are  able  to  live  in  him. 

Now  on  the  con)men:  itself,  (l)  Mr.  B.  inlmitp  that 
the  phrase,  '"  they  that  are  la  ihe  tlesb,"  iDeana 
"They  who  arc  umone.ved  sinners" — unregentrato 

men.  ,  ... 

(2)  Headmi's,  (hit,  "irh^le  (hey  are  m  ihisptate, 
they  cmnfii  please  G"d,"  "But"— what?  Miey  can 
change  their  state — if !  !iey  choose,  they  ran  come  out 
ot  it~"  i3nt  (his  a!lirm.='  nothing  respfciiin--  ibeir 
ability  to  turn  fr<wa  ihis  contse  ai  i!  lo  puisne  a  Jitfcr- 
ent  mode  of  life."  Now  .Mr.  ModeraUii  I  alTirn.  the 
plain  meaning  of  this  lanruaf^e  to  lie,  "  tliat  unre- 
10 


114  TRIAL   OV 

generate  men  are  able  lo  convert  themselves."  Na 
simple  unsophisticaicd  mind  is  able  to  lake  ariy  other 
meaning  out  of  it. 

(3)  Tiie  writer  however  illustrates,  "  A  child  may 
be  obstinate,  proud,  and  disobedient,  and  while  in 
this  state,  it  may  be  allirmed  ol  him,  Ihat  he  cannot 
please  his  parent.  "  But" — what?  llie child,  when- 
ever he  chooses,  may  cease  to  be  disobedient — may 
change  his  state — can  convert  liiniseH— "  But 
•whether  he  mi^ht  not  cease  to  be  obstinate  and  be- 
come obedient  is  a  very  dilFerent  inquiry."  iThe 
same  kind  of  ability  is  affirmed  of  men  in  relerence  to 
their  Creator,  as  is  affirmed  of  the  child  in  reference 
to  its  parent.  A  child  can  convert  itself  from  a  state 
of  disobedience  to  a  state  of  obedience  ;  the  unrenew- 
ed sinner  can  convert  himself  from  that  state  to  a 
titate  ol  obedience. 

(4)  I  cannot  in  justice  refrain  from  the  remark, 
that  the  whole  comment  is  assertion  ;  dogmatic  ae- 
aertion.  Jhre  it  would  seem  the  annotator  i'elt  that 
he  was  writing  for  children  and  youngr  people. 

(5)  "  We  were  yet  without  strength."  This  "re- 
mark of  the  apostle"  he  says  "  has  reference  07ily  to 
tlie  condition  of  the  case  before  the  atonement  was 
made."  Of  course,  movj  the  deficiency  of  strength  does 
not  exist ;  we  are  not  without  strength.  The  atone- 
ment has  removed  the  inability  and  consequently  put 
men  in  a  ealvable  state — that  is,  all  men — in  a  state 
where  they  may  be  saved  if  they  choose  and  when- 
ever they  choose.  This  is  a  distinguishing  tenet,  but 
not  of  Presbyterianism. 

(6)  In  this  liomment,  the  carnal  mind  is  tnken  ab- 
stractly, for  the  acting  of  the  individual — the  "  mind- 
inf;  of  the  Jiesh''^  ''giving  supreme  attention,"  and 
this  acting  is  personified,  and  concerning  it  the  ques- 
tion is  raised  ;  can  it  be  subject  to  the  law  of  God  ? 
Has  it — the  acting,  ability  to  obey  the  law?  Now  this 
forced  and  unnatural.  The  question  of  subjection  to 
law  relates  to  persons,  and  accordingly  the  apostle 
draws  his  conclusion,  "  So  then,  they  that  are  in  tlie 
flesh  cannot  please  God."  The  carnal  niind  (to 
phroncma  tees  sarkos)  is  therefore  equivalent  to 
"  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  ;"  i.  e.  unregenerate  men. 
These  are  unable  to  be  themselves  pleasing  to  God  ; 
or  by  their  ccnducr  to  please  him.  They  are  unable 
says  the  apostle:  that  is  true,  says  his  expositor, 
but  they  can  turn  and  then  it  must  be  otherwise. 

This  doctrine  of  human  ability  is  contrary  to  the 
standards. 

Con.  vj.  4:  "Prom  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we 
are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual 
iransgreasione." 

jx.  3:  "Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly 


MR.    BA.RNBCi. 


115 


lost  oil  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  ^ood  accompanying 
salvation;  so  as  a  natural  man  being  ahogoilirr  avtrse  from 
that  wliich  a  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own 
strength,  to  convert  lumself,  or  to  prepare  himself  ihercunto." 

X.  1 :  "All  tho«c  whom  God  lias  predestinated  unio  lilV,  and 
those  only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  necci)ied  lime, 
cfi-jctually  to  call,  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  out  of  thiit  stiite  of 
sin  and  death,  in  which  they  are  by  iialure,  to  grace  and  sal- 
vation by  Jesus  Chrsii;  ei)lightenmg  tiicir  minds  tpiriiually 
and  i-avintly,  (o  understand  the  things  of  God,  taking  away 
their  her.rt  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart  of  flesh  ; 
renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty  power  determining 
them  to  that  which  is  good  ;  aad  cfiectiially  drawing  them  to 
Jesus  Christ;  yet  so  as  they  come  most  freely,  being  made 
willing  by  his  grace." 

2  :  "  This  cHlctual  calling  is  of  God's  free  and  special 
grace  nlonc,  not  fiom  any  thing  at  all  foreseen  in  man;  who 
IS  altogether  passive  therein,  until,  being  quieUened  and  re- 
newed by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer 
this  call,  and  to  embrace  the  grace  oBercd  and  conveyed  in 
k." 

xvi.  3 :  "Their  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of  them- 
jBelves,  but  wholly  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  And  that  they 
may  be  enabled  thereunto,  besides  the  grace  they  have  al- 
ready received,  there  is  requited  an  actual  influence  of  the 
same  Holy  Spirit,  to  work  in  them  to  will  and  to  do  of  his 
good  pleasure." 

The  inability  here  afTects,  I.  The  tindei standing. 
For  in  the  recovery  Tom  ii,  llie  counteracting  grace 
begins  in  the  undert tandini?,  "enlightening  their 
minds  si'iritLiaiiy  and  savingly,  to  understand  the 
thin;^s  ofGod."  And  this  is  supported  by  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

Acts  xxxvi.  IS;  "To  open  their  eyes  and  to  turn  them  from 
darkness  to  light." 

And  this  is  exactly  accordant  with  the  iiistory  of 
sin's  introduction.  It  was  by  the  understanding — 
"the  woman,  bein^  deceived,  was  in  tlie  trans^ree- 
eion."    So  are  all  her  posterity. 

I.  Cor.  ii.  14:  "But  the  natural  man  receivcih  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  Gxjd." 

Why?  because  he  don't  like  them?  Not  exactly 
that — but  for  another  reason  lying-  beyond  it — he 
dofi't  understand  them  spiritually,  "lor  they  are  fool- 
ishness unto  hiai."  Why?  because,  '"neither  can 
he  Unow  them."  And  why  is  he  unable  to  know 
them?"  "Because  they  are  spiritually  discerned," 
and  "the  God  of  this  world  hath  bhnded  the  minds 
of  them  that  believe  not" — of  the  unregenerate — 
that  is.  of  till  men.  "Darkness  hath  covered  the 
earth."  That  faculty  of  man  by  which  he  perceives 
truth  and  reasons  upon  it,  as  it  was  the  first  aH'ected 
by  sin,  so  it  is  the  first  ali'ected  by  the  Spirit,  in  hia 
work  of  restoring  our  nature.  Then,  the  understand- 
0g  being  enlightened, 


116  TRIAL  OF 

2.  The  obdurncy,  the  hardness,  the  inseneibihty  oJ 
the  soul,  is  removed;  the  aff'cctions  arc  allecied, 
"  taking  away  ilieir  lieart  o(  stone,  and  givinar  unto 
them  a  heart  ol'fleah."  And  this  part  of  the  Conies- 
einn  is  eustained  by 

Ezck.  XXXVI.  2G :  "  A  now  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a 
new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you  ;  and  1  will  lake  away  ihc 
Stony  heart  out  ut  your  desli,  snd  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of 
flesh." 

Then,  the  aflVctions  being  susceptible  of  tender  in- 
fluenced, t!irou;!;lt  the  understaiidin^'s  perceptions  of 
Ike  gj-^|)fl  plati  and  God's  love  therein  exhibited,  and 
thus  i)repar<'d  to  operate  ujxin  the  will, 

3.  The  will  is  renewed.  Tiiis  ;s  (hat  Htculty  of  the 
soul  by  which  choice  i»  made.  The  will  is  the  soul 
or  mind  choo.-inn-.  "  That  which  has  the  ])ower  of 
volition  is  tiie  tuan,  or  the  soul,"  says  Edwards,  "  re- 
newing their  wills."  For  by  sin  they  were  "made 
opposite  to  all  gnoil,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil." 
But  now  God  "  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  ta 
do  of  i;:s  gouil  pleusuic." 

Phil.  ii.  13 :  "  Kor  the  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of 
themselvc?." 

But  here,  a  very  important  question  turns  up,  by 
what  kind  of  influence  is  this  renewing  of  tlie  will 
effected  ?  Is  it  by  motives  only,  according  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  ttuin  influences  his  fellow  man  7  is  it 
mere  persuasion  and  argument?  "  Knowing  the  ter- 
ror of  the  Lord,  we  persuade  men:"  but  does  God's 
Spirit  do  any  thing  more  than  persuade  nn-n?  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  some.  But  look  at  the  Conliission : 
"And  by  his  aimisrhty  power  determining  them  to 
that  which  is  good."  Or  ;is  in  the  Shorter  Cat.  31 :; 
"  He  doih  persuade  and  enable  us."  Suasion  is  used, 
but  power  is  also  given.  Or  as  in  the  Lar.  Cat.  67: 
"  They  (although  in  themselves  dead  in  sin,)  are 
hereby  made  vyiUing  and  able."  "  Man  had  lost  all 
ability  of  will,  so  as  a  natural  man,  is  not  able  by  his 
own  stren:?th  to  convert  himself."  Thcrelore  God 
gives  him  strcaLnh  or  ability  working  in  him  "  by  hia 
almighty  power."^ 

Thus,  by  the  Confession  and  the  Bible,  the  utter 
inability  ot  man  lies  in  his  undf.rs landing,  his  (iffec- 
tions,  and  his  icill.  The  understanding  is  liie  lead- 
ing faculty  ol  the  soul;  it  jiresents  to  the  alfcctiona 
objects  ol  desire  or  avt-rsion;  the  aflleclions  are  mo- 
ved and  operate  upon  the  will,  and  the  divine  power 
of  the  Spirit  gives  ability  inall.  How  satislaciory  ia 
this  Sciiptural  and  C^'onlession-of-Failh  view  of  the 
subject  to  the  simple-hearted  christian,  unspoiled  by 
false  phi!  isophy  and  bewihlering  metaphysics? 

I  have  one  word  to  say  on  the  doctrine  that  pre- 
sent ability  is  the  nieasure  of  present  duly,  or,  in 


MR.   BARNES.  117 

Other  words,  ihat  a  man's  inability  to  meet  the  re- 
quisiiioiis  ol'iavv  cancels  his  obligaiion  ;  tiiat  a  man 
cannoL  be  bouinl  lo  do  wbai  lie  is  unable  lo  do.  This 
position  1  suppose  to  be  among  the  mosi  unspeakable 
oi"  absLirdiiies.  Possibly  I  may  not  liare  ability  to 
unilerstand  Br.  B.  and  others,  who  have  i.cently 
laid  down  this  as  a  moral  axiom.  But  lo  mi;  it  docs 
seem  as  il'ihey  meant  to  deny  obligiUion,  wherever 
inability  exists.  "  The  Bible  nowhere  requires  more 
ol'men  than  they  are  able  lo  i)t;rrorm."  "  It  does  not 
lay  a  claim  on  any  power  which  man  does  not  possess, 
nor  beyond  any  j)ower  which  he  posses-ses.  It  ie 
definitely  limited  to  the  extent  of  the  capacity."  In- 
ability, no  matter  how  perversely  and  wicK'edly 
brouf^ht  about,  cancels  oblii^alion.  On  this  new 
axiom  in  morals  you  must  indulge  me  in  a  lew  par- 
ticular remariis. 

It  repeals  a  great  and  important  principle,  viz.: 
that  a  man  is  a.ccounlahle,  not  only  for  his  own  sinful 
act  itself,  but  also  for  the  necessary  and  lei^itimate 
results  of  Ihat  act.  If  I  murtler  a  nu-in  on  whose  per- 
sonal labor  there  is  dependent  a  family  of  helidees 
childreti,  1  am  accountalile  not  lor  the  act  of  murder 
only,  but  for  the  vvreichedness  and  misery  that  may 
follow  his  family;  lor  the  ii?nor;'.nce  and  vice  into 
which  they  may  be  plunged  by  my  deed  ;  for  the  whole 
line  of  evils  which  hence  result.  II'  I  sell  rum  to  my 
neighbor,  am  I  accountable  only  for  the  direct  and 
immediate  eli'ects  of  the  act?  or  nm  I  responsible 
for  the  disability  that  hence  ensues?  My  neighbor 
becomes  a  drunkard  ;  he  is  disabled  from  sUbiaininff 
his  family  ;  by  his  example  they  are  trained  up  in  all 
the  ignorance  and  vice  of  the  druidwird's  hovel.  Am 
not  i  responsible  lor  these  disabiliiies?  And  doea 
the  disability  of  the  drunU;ird,  a  disability  iniiuced  by 
his  owR  perverse  and  wicked  conduct— does  this  re- 
lease him  from  the  obligation  to  provide  for  his 
household  ? 

But  in  reply  it  is  said,  the  man  may  he  punished 
for  the  act  of  cutting  otf  his  liand,  bjut  not  for  neglect- 
ing the  duties  to  which  he  was  beiore  bound;  to  re- 
quire them  "  would  be  the  definiiion  of  tyranny." 
Then  clearly,  the  obligatiim  lo  duty,  the  duty  o*'obe- 
dience,  the  duly  of  providing  for  his  hous'jhold,  is 
nullified  by  the  man's  own  act  of  sin  !     Hence  again, 

2.  I  remark,  sin  is  its  ovvn  apology,  and  lif's  the 
eiimer  above  law.  The  law-giver  requires  obedi- 
ence ;  the  subject  disables  himself  by  perverse  rebel- 
lion ;  he  cannot  obey ;  therefore  he  is  no  longer  bound 
to  obey.    But, 

3.  Apply  this  principle  to  the  commercial  transac- 
tions of  society.  A  man  couiracts  a  debt  within  the 
compass  of  his  present  ability;  he  perversely  and 
wickedly  Equanders  hie  estate,  gambles  away  hispro- 

10* 


IIS  TRIAL    or 

perty  and  dJsables  himself  from  pnyment ;  is  he  there^ 
fore  not  boiiml  ?  Is  he  Irce  Iruni  moral  obli;^ation  to 
pay  it?  Must  justice  Itreak  her  scales  and  no  more 
hold  up  an  eipiul  haiance  becuuee  he  ciiooees  to  be- 
come a  villain?  0)1  no,  the  children  ol"  this  world- 
are  wise  in  their  ^eneraiion.  The  mercliant  may 
forgive  the  debt,  but  lurgivcness  implies  obli^aiioa 
10  |)ay.  Tile  master  may  onni  to  demand  llie  ser- 
vice (tr  punish  its  ne;;lccf,  but  it  is  an  omission  o£ 
mtrcy.  The  law  may  not  prosecuie  the  rum-seller, 
tiie  hajrjrard  wile  and  children  may  be  unable  to  ex- 
act juaaice  of  him,  but  tlien  it  is  hecau.^e  cupidity  and 
lust  are  100  sironi;  for  justice.     Therelore, 

4.  This  (iriiiciple  is  a  tubversion,  at  onre,  of  all 
moral  'iioveriinicnt.  Let  it  be  known  ihrou^'hout  the 
moral  universe  Uiat  inabiliiy,  (resulting  I'rom  the 
most  perverse  wickedness, J  cancels  moral  oblijration^ 
and  iliere  will  rortluviili  r.omn>ence  a  jubilee  in  the 
realms  orieboilioa,  and  tiieir  ranks  ina>  very  soon  bo 
filled  up;  lor  rebeiiion  is  then  thi  surest  and  the 
shortest  riiad  to  independeiue. 

1  5.  But  I  observe  asaiiijii' natural  inability  cancels 
moral  oMii^anon,  miidi  more,  moral  inabiliiy  cancels 
moral  obliijation.  Your  rts|.ecil"ul  and  special  atten- 
tion is  invited  to  this  point.  It  is  an  u<l /lomiutuinysia- 
incni.  against  the  atiiluy  ilocirine.  Taking  tiiese  breth- 
on  their  own  principles,  let  us  see  what  liie  it  suit 
must  be.  We  conlend  (hat  man  labors  under  a  "de- 
fect or  t>>stacle"  as  Eduards  says,  '"  in  the  faculty  of 
understaniling;"  that  tliis  far  id ty  in  our  pret^ent  de- 
praved stale  is  unable  to  ditcern  spiritual  ihinge. 
This  is  called  by  many  a  nnlural  inability  ;  and  ine 
axiom  of  our  brelhren  is,  that  this  uutur.ul  inubilitif 
desfjys  moral  obligation.  Now  liroiher  Barnes 
n>aintains  that  man  has  wiinrul  ability,  but  he  lacks 
moral  ability  ;  he  labors  under  a  moral  defect  or  ob- 
stacle, a  defect,  or  obslacb',  or  inability,  utterly  un- 
removable, but  by  the  power  of  God.  Nothing  but 
divine  grace  can  reinov«  it ;  an  inability  in  that  very 
faculty  which  gives  moral  character  to  himself  and 
ftll  his  nctions;  an  inability  of  will,  Kcmovable  only 
by  the  Spirit  of  God.    Now,  I  repi;at  it,  if  natuhal 

XNABILIIV  DESTROYS  MOKAL  OBLIGATION,  <i  fortlOri, 
MOUAL    INABILITY     DESTKOYS    MORAL   OBLIGATION.,     Lcl 

thi  aJvocite  of  numan  ability  make  his  e'eciion.  Let 
him  either  admit  in  m's   total   depravity  in  nnder- 
sfcinding.  will,  and  ati'fctions,  and  thus  become  a  con- 
sistent Calvinist,  or  let   him  go  over  entirely,  ancf 
maiaiain  moial  ability,  and  thus  become  a  consistent 
Armini.LM.     How  can  a  rational   man  hold   this  hall- 
way course?    Surely,  the  anempt  to  6U!»peiid  Lirn- 
-  I^h'bcivveen  the  horns  of  this  dilemma,  by  a  nieta- 
/   physical  hair,  hali  sawed  oH,  is  suificicnt  evidence  ot 
<    4t^lcct  in  luan'it  under staadiri^;. 


MU.   BARNE».  119 

Thii?  closes  what  1  have  to  pay  on  the  lliirdchar/^e. 

At  this  point  Dr.  Junkin  poeptndtd  hi.^  argument ; 
and  the  Synod  adjourned  lill  Monday  morning  at  9 
o'clock.    Closed  wiih  prayer. 

Monday  Mornins^,  9  o'clock. — Synod  met  and  wa» 
opened  with  pra)er. 

Dr.  Junkin  resumed  his  ar;?umcnt  in  support  oftho 
appeal. 

1  am  attempting?  to  narrow  down  my  remarks  in 
constquence  ot"  the  expecialion  which  seems  tobe 
generally  enierlained  Uiat  (here  will'  be  no  response 
on  ihe  part  of  iheapiieliee;  and  t'li-:  may  no  doubt 
create  some  conlu&ion  m  the  prof^rcss  of  the  discus- 
sion. 

Charge  IV. 

I  have  now  arrived  at  the  4ih  charsje.  It  is  io  theso 
words : 

Mr.  Barnes  asserts  that  "  faiili  is  an  act  of  the  mind,  and 
not  a  principle,  arid  is  itself  iinimtei!  tor  ti^silitcciisness." 

My  lirst  prooi'  is  Iron!  ]).  i.i4  ol'  "  the  Notes  on  the 
Romans. " 

Pa^'C  94.  '^Abraham  bH'V.d  God.''  In  thr  HibreWj 
"A'trahani  belie vtd  ././toivtA."  Trie  sen?e  is  substantially 
the  same,  as  the  arguriRiU  turns  on  ihencf  of  belitvuig.  The 
faith  which  Abraham  txercistd  wa-,  that  his  postciiiy  should 
be  like  the  suns  of  hi.aven  in  number.  This  prospect  waa 
iiindc  to  him  when  he  had  no  clubl,  and  of  eour-^e  when  he 
had  no  ^:roa7);ci  of  such  a  posicniy.  iSce  the  siren^jih  and 
nature  ol  this  laith  fujiber  illijsirated  inverses  in  16—21. 
The  reason  why  it  was  counted  tx<  hira  for  ri<;h.teousncss  was, 
that  ft  was  such  a  strong,  diieci  and  unwavering  act  of  confi- 
dence in  the  promise  ol  God.  And  ii. — The  word  '*  k"  here 
evidently  refers,  to  the  act  of  believiny.  It  does  not  refer  to. 
the  rigliieousness  of  another — of  God  or  of  the  Mi'ssiah  j  but 
the  discussion  is  solely  of  the  stroii}^  act  oi  Abraham's  faith, 
which  in  soyne  sense  was  counted  to  hiia  for  righteousness. 
In  what  sense  iliis  was,  is  explained  dircc.'iy  after.  All  that 
is  material  lo  remark  here  is,  that  the  act  of  Abraham,  tha 
•trong  confidericu  of  his  mind  in  the  proiiiises  of  God,  his  un- 
wavering Hssuraiice  that  what  God  had  promised  he  would 
perform,  was  received  for  righteousness.  The  same  thing  is 
expressed  more  fully  in  ver.  18-'<i2.  When,  therefore,  it  is 
said  the  righieousness  of  Chrisi  is  accounted  or  imputed  lo 
us;  when  it  is  said  that  his  merijis  are  transferred  and  reckon- 
ed as  ours;  whatever  may  be  the  'ruth  ol  the  doctrine,  it  can- 
not be  delendcd  by  Ihis  passage  of  Scripture.  P'aith  is  al- 
ways an  act  of  the  mmd.  It  is  not  a  created  essence  which 
is  placed  within  the  ojind.  It  is  not  a  substance  creat  d  in- 
dependently of  the  soul,  and  placed  within  it  by  Almighty 
power.  It  IS  not  a  prinxsipU,  for  ihe expression,  a  principle  of 
faith,  is  as  unmeaning  us  a  principle  of  joy,  or  a  priiic  pie  of 
sorrow,  or  a  piiuciple  of  remorse.  God  promises,  and  the 
man  believes,  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it.  Beyond  the  mental 
operanon,  there  is  nodiingin  the  case,  and  the  word  is  strictly 
UniLled  to  such  an   act  of  the  mind  ihroughoul  the  Bibl*. 


120  TRIAL   OP 

There  is  not  a  place  thai  can  be  adduced  where  tUe  word 
means  any  iliiiig  else  than  an  act  oJ  the  mind,  exercised  in 
relauon  to  some  object,  or  some  promise,  or  threaienmg,  or 
^/  J  declarntioH  of  some  oilier  being."  Page  95.  "  Romark  (1). 
^5  ^  *T'hai  it  IS  evidcnily  not  intc'idid  tliat  the  act  of  behcving,  on 
the  part  of  Abraham,  was  tiie  mti-Uurious  ground  of  accept- 
ance; for  then  it  v/ouid  have  teen  a  work.  Faiih  was  38 
tnucli  his  own  act,  ns  any  act  of  obedience  to  the  law.  (2) 
The  design  of  the  .\posile  was  lo  show  that  by  the  law  or  by 
works,  man  could  not  be  jusiified.  Chap.  iii.  23,  iv.  2.  (3) 
Faith  was  not  that  wliich  the  law  required.  It  demanded 
comisleteand  perfect  obedience ;  and  if  a  man  was  justified 
hyfailh,  it  was  in  .-ome  other  vrmj,  ihan  by  the  law.  (4)  As 
the  law  did  not  demand  thin,  [faun  "confidence  in  God"  see 
page  30:]  and  as  faith  was  something  diiiereiil  Irom  ilie  de- 
mand ol  the  luw,  so  if  a  n.an  were  justified  by  that,  it  was 
onaprinc'rple  aliogeihir  diflbrentfrom  jusiificalion  by  works. 
It  was  noi  by  personal  merit,  ll  was  not  by  complying  with 
the  law.    ll  was  a  mode  cndrely  ditLrtnt." 

Tins  court  will  not  bear  with  j)atience  a  1002:  dis- 
cussion on  the  testimony  evincing;  the  truth  oi"  this 
charjije.  For  the  author  of  the  book  put  in,  to  this 
*  branch  ol"  the  charges,  a  plea  ol  justilication — ad- 
mittinjj  the  iruih  of  the  charj^e,  but  denying  lis  rele- 
vancy. His  position  is,  that  Ikith  is  an  act  ol"  the 
mind  and  mU  a  princ.ple  in  the  mind.  The  charge 
is  in  precise  accordance  witii  tlui  language  ol  the 
book.  Yet  some  remarks  will  be  requisite, — not  lo 
shew  that  the  doctrine  alleged  is  contained  in  Mr. 
Barnes'  book,  I'jr  tliat  is  admitted. — hut  to  show  that 
it  is  iaconsisleiU  with  the  Cont'e-ssion  ol  i<"aiih  and 
with  the  Bible.  By  the  principle  of  faith  is  meant  a 
habit  of  action  ;  adi^pusition  of  the  mind  to  act.  The 
general  principle  of  laith  isau  esj^cniial  |)art  of  human 
nature:  as  much  so  as  sight  or  hearing.  To  put 
confidence  in  tciliinony  belongs  to  human  nature,  as 
euch.  If  a  man  could  be  without  it,  he  would  be,  so 
far.  not  a  human  being,  just  a.=  if  a  man's  intellect  is 
gone,  he  lacks  an  essential  part  of  human  nature,  la 
relation  lo  that  faith  which  saves  the  soul,  the  Scrip- 
ture as.-^ures  us  that  a  muu  hasnciiher  laith  nor  abil- 
ity without  the  renewing  of  liie  Holy  Spirit.  If  an 
utter  stranger  cries  out  in  your  iiearing  that  your 
house  is  on  tire,  you  all  believe  it  to  be  so.  But  with 
respect  to  God's  testimony  there  is  not  tliai.  principle 
in  lallen  man.  The  autlior  of  this  book  denies  that 
this  IS  a  principle  in  a  renewed  man.  But  when  a 
man  is  converted,  he  has  the  r;ame  disposition  to  be- 
lieve God  as  a  child  has  to  believe  its  parent.  It  ia 
not  an  insulated  act — but  a  disj)osiiion  permanent  in 
the  nature  of  man  to  believe  in  regard  to  natural 
thiuirs — and  so  in  the  renewed  with  regard  lo  thing* 
spiritual.  The  phraseology  is  plain.  1  said  so  be- 
fore— 1  think  so  still.  Faith,  it  eeems,  is  an  act  of 
the  mind.    But  Abraham  had  it  from  the  time  of  hii 


MR.   BA&NK*.  121 

calling  of  God  in  the  70th  year  of  liid  age  1o  the  end 
of  his  hfe.  Hovv  niiitiy  acts  ofliiitli  fie  |»erfornicd  in 
that  lime  is  not  lor  us  to  say.  TJiere  was  a  coniinu- 
ed  repetition  of  them,  whenever  God's  iniih  was 
presented,  and  so  it  is  now.  VVIienever  God's  testi- 
mony is  presented,  liiiiii  troos  out  and  eml>races  it. 
It  is  a  principle  inliahiting  the  soul.  Christians  in 
this  respect  experience  a  growth  in  grace.  The 
principle  ofi'aiih  is  sfrengtiifned — its  increase  showa 
It  to  be  a  principle.  The  a'llhor  speaks  of  strong  acta 
offairh;  but  the  phrase  involves  an  inconsistency — a 
strou'^  act  of  tlie  mind  !  How  can  he  speak  ol  "'acts 
of  faith"  holding  such  a  position  as  he  does  on  tho 
eubjecl  ?  In  fact,  it.  is  not  easy  for  such  persons  to  use 
the  language  of  Christians  and  the  Bible.  If  faith  is 
un  act,  of  the  mind,  and  nothing  more,  it  is  as  much 
obedience  of  the  law  as  any  other  act  of  obedience: 
and  then  a  man  is  justified  by  the  works,  or  by  one 
work  ot  the  law.  The  author  saw  this.  If  faith  ia 
only  an  act  of  tiie  mind,  wlien  that  act  is  o'^er  the 
man  ie  no  longer  a  believer.  II  laiih  is  not  perma- 
nent witiiin  liim,  he  cannot,  sustain  the  character  of  a 
believer.  He  is  in  iVu  i  no  belif.vcr.  Ileiu^e  tlie  infe- 
rence is  not  easily  to  be  avoided  that  a  man  is  justi- 
fied by  his  works — by  iiis  action.  We  are  indeed  told 
that  it  is  not  a  meritorious  ground  of  justificationj 
hut  how  can  this  be  if  ii  is  his  own  act  ?  I'liis  author 
says  that  faith  was  not  demanded  by  the  law.  But 
the  mere  denial  that  faith  is  a  work  is  nothing  but 
the  setting  up  of  one  assertion  against  another.  He 
Bays  it  is  an  act,  but  denies  the  necessary  conse- 
quence. But  he  can  never  show  that  such  conse- 
quence does  not  follow — for  faith,  if  it  is  a  man's  own 
act,  is  a  work  of  i_he  law. 

The  next  proof  is, 

p.  23.  The  phrase  riahlcousncss  of  God  is  equivalent  to 
GodS-  plan  of  justifying  men  j  his  scheme  of  declaring  them 
Just  in  the  sight  of  the  law  ;  or  of  acq'iiiting  them  from  pnii- 
ishincnt,  and  admittins  iheni  to  favor.  In  this  sense  it  standa 
opposed  to  man's  plan  ol  jjsiification,  i.  e.  by  his  own  works. 
God's  plan  is  by  faiih.  'I'he  way  in  which  that  is  done  is 
revealed  in  the  gospel.  The  object  contemplated  to  be  dono 
is  to  treat  men  as  if  liiey  were  ng'ueous.  Man  attempted  to 
Rccomulisn  this  by  obedience  to  the  law.  The  plan  of  God 
was  to  arrive  at  it  by  faith.  Here  the  two  schemes  ddfer  ;  &c. 

Here  he  denies  thai  faith  is  required  by  the  law. 
Into  this  difficulty  lie  is  thrown  by  his  attempt  to 
shoiv  that  it  is  riot  a  work  of  the  law.  Having  taken 
Buch  a  position,  he  is  oUliged  to  eliow  that  it  is  not 
required  by  the  law, 

p.  30.  This  eyprcssion,  (Thcius^t  shall  hve  by  faiib,)  there- 
fore, does  not  iiie;in.  as  it  is  Fonieiimcs  supposed,  the  justiS- 
fd  by  faith  shall  live,  but  it  is  ex-i-essive  of  a  general  (jrinci- 
f\e  111  rclaiioi;  to  irtun,  that  ihey  ah^A  be  delended,  pi^^^rvtd, 


1'22  TRIAL   OF 

made  hsppy,  not  by  their  own  merits  er  strength,  but  by  con- 
fidence ill  God. 

Faith,  it  seems,  is  confidence  in  Goil,  and  yet  it  is 
not  required  by  the  law  !  I  merely  refer  to  this  to 
show  that  there  is  an  iiisurmoiinlable  dilFiculty  ia 
the  way  of  all  who  hold  such  sentiments. 

In  opj)Osition  to  the  charge  it  is  alleajed  that  the 
phrase  "a  principle  ol' lUith"  is  wiihonl  meaninj?, 
that  it  plunges  us  at  once  inio  tiie  dejjlhs  of  meta- 
physical disquisition  and  distraction.  But  the  same 
objection  may  be  raised  in  regard  to  any  other  phrase 
of  a  similar  kind.  We  may  be  asked,  what  do  yon 
mean  by  a  "  jjrincipic  of  tforrow?"  or  "  a  princij)le  ot 
love?"  I  mean  by  it  a  fi.xed  disposition  of  the  mind ; 
you  may  call  it  a  habit,  or  by  any  other  synonymous 
term  you  please.  A  princ.iiile  ol"  love  is  a  disposition 
of  the  mind  vvhich  disposes  it  to  extend  love,  readily, 
to  a  lovely  object.  Just  so  the  principle  of  faith  is  a 
disposition  of  the  mind  to  believe  on  mmpetent  tes- 
timony. This  book  denies  the  existence  of  such  a 
prir\ciple.  It  says  that  jciy  is  nut  a  jjiiiiciple,  l)ut  that 
there  is  something  in  the  mind  from  which  this  Howe. 
And  so  of  f  lith.  F^ith  is  not  a  feeling:  but  an  opera- 
lion  of  the  mind.  They  say  there  is  nothing  which 
lies  aback  of  faith.  It  is  a  simple  insubited  act  of  the 
mind — a  stream  without  a  ibuntnin.  There  may  be, 
it  seems,  ten  thousand  act.s  of  iaiih  in  the  same  indi- 
viduaj  tfirouo-iiout  hi?  life,  and  yet  no  principle  of 
laith  from  which  they  flow. 

I  coniend  a^a  nst  this  view  of  thinjrs,  and  I  shall 
ehow  that  the  Confession  ofFaitli  and  the  Bible  alike 
rojcct  it. 

And  on  this  subject  I  refer  the  Synod  to  a  definition 
Riven  by  Dr.  .Taruc-s  P.  Wilson,  in  a  note,  in  the  third 
volume  of  Ridgley's  of  Divinity,  p.  129. 

Faidi,  according  lo  the  beloved  disciple  John,  and  the  great 
St.  Paul,  is  the  belief  of  the  tvulh;  the  beHevin^  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ ;  or  a  giving  credit  lo  the  ncord  that  God  gave 
of  his  Son.  These  defimtionj  are  all  of  the  same  import, 
and  arc  all  divine.  Beniij  diclated  by  ihc  Spirit  of  God,  they 
cannot  be  contradicted  by  any,  although  some  have  glossed 
upon  ihc'iii,  till  lluy  have  brought  i:i  a  sense  diverse  from  the 
inspired  wtiicrs.  This  futli,  when  it  is  real,  as  disiinguished 
from  dial  uninlluential  assent  lo  the  gospel,  which  crowds, 
who  hear  ii,  proless  lo  have,  is  an  cfl..ct  of  the  divine  influ- 
ense  ill  us;  hence  it  is  s.aid  to  be  of  the  operation  of  God; 
and  ihal  ii  is  wiih  ihe  heart  man  believeih  unto  righteous- 
ness. As  th  ■  righteousness  by  wliidi  the  sinner  is  jusiified, 
is  the  sole  work  otChrisi  for  him,  so  ihis  is  ihe  work  of  the 
Holy  Gaosi  in  lain,  and  no  less  necessary  in  its  proper 
place;  it  being  thai,  without  which  a  sinner  cannot  compre- 
hend, receive,  and  rest  u[)on  Clirist  for  eternal  life.  By  faith, 
as  Lefore  observed,  he  becomes  acquainted  with  the  fjlories 
of  the  character  of  Jesus,  the  fulness  of  grace  in  him,   aad 


MR.  BARNES.  123 

the  suitableness  and  perfection  of  Iiia  riglilcousncss;  in  con- 
sequence of  this  faith,  headiiiiras  the  Suvior's  pi^rsonnl  excel- 
lencies, fli(  s  to  him,  ventures  all  upon  him,  and  rejoices  in 
him.  These,  to  speak  plainly,  are  all  so  many  effects  of 
faith.  The  sinner  must  have  a  view  of  the  fcJavior's  excel- 
lency, before  he  will  admire  it.  He  must  be  persuaded,  that 
Christ  is  the  only  safe  refuge,  before  he  will  fly  to  him.  He 
must  know  that  there  is  in  Christ  sufficient  matter  of  conso- 
lation, before  he  will  rejoice  in  him.  Of  all  these  he  is  entirely 
satisfied  by  faith  in  the  tesiitnony  of  God  :  siibscqienl  to 
which  is  hia  coining  or  tlyiiig  to  him,  trusting  in  or  vcriturinsj 
all  upon  him,  njoicing  in  him,  &c.  e.  g.  Joscfih's  brethien 
heard  that  there  was  corn  enough  in  Kgypt ;  they  believed 
the  report:  this  was  faith  ;  upon  this  they  went  down  for  a 
supply.  Doubtless  this  was  an  effect  of  their  faith  ;  forbad 
they  not  believed  the  tidings,  they  would  never  have  gone.  So 
a  sinner  must  believe  that  Christ  is  a  full  and  complete  Sa- 
vior, before  he  will  run  or  fly  to  him.  Sense  of  misery,  and 
faith  in  his  sufiieiency,  are  the  main  stimulus.  Or,  I  am 
sick,  I  hear  of  an  able  physician,  I  believe  him  to  be  so,  upon 
which  I  apply  to  him;  my  application  to  him,  and  my  belief 
of  his  character,  are  as  distinct  as  any  two  things  can  be:  my 
trusting  my  life  in  his  hands,  is  an  etiect  of  my  believing  him 
to  be  an  able  physician.  This  distinction  is  obvious  ia  the 
sacred  writings,  as  well  as  in  ths  nature  of  things.  He  that 
Cometh  to  God,  must  believe  that  he  is.  Here  is  a  manifest 
distinction  between  coiiiing  and  belicvi."^- 

The  Confession  of  Faith  declares  in  chap.  14  : 

The  grace  of  faith,  whereby  the  elect  are  enabled  to  believe 
to  the  saving  of  their  souls,is  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
in  their  hearts,  and  is  ordinarily  wrought  by  the  ministry  of 
the  word ;  by  which,  also,  and  by  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments  and  prayer,  it  is  increased  and  sirengthtned. 

By  this  faith,  a  christian  believeth  to  be  true  whatsoever  is 
revealed  in  the  word,  for  the  authority  of  God  himself  speak- 
ing therein;  and  acteth  difTercntly,  upon  that  which  each 
particular  passage  thereof  containeth;  yielding  obedience  to 
thecomtnauds,  trembling  at  the  threatenings,  and  embracing 
the  promises  of  God  for  this  life  and  that  which  is  to  come. 
But  the  principal  acts  of  saving  faith  are,  accepting,  receiving 
and  reptinaupon  Christ  alone,  for  justifica*ion,  sapclilication, 
and  eternal  life,  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

This  faith  is  diiferent  in  d'^grees,  wetk  or  strong ;  may  be 
often  and  many  ways  assailed  and  v.'cakened,  but  gets  the 
victory  ;  growing  up  in  many  to  the  attainment  of  a  full  as- 
surance ilirough  Christ,  who  is  both  the  author  and  finisher 
of  our  faith. 

Surely  I  need  go  no  farther.  How  a  man  can  use 
this  hingaage  who  holds  faith  to  be  an  act  only,  I  do 
not  uiiderstand.  Are  there  two  faiths?  or  a  thou- 
sand faiths?  or  is  it  an  abiding  principle,  something 
in  the  soul  which  grows,  like  a  tree,  which incresBes, 
ae  our  muscles  do,  by  its  own  exercise  ? 

Hear  the  Confession  again,  ch.  11,  sec.  I. 

Those  whom  God  efTectually  calleth  he  also  freely  justifi- 
ethi  not  by  infusing  righteousness  into  them,  but  by  pardon- 


124  TRIAL  O* 

ing  llicir  sin?,  and  by  arcounting  and  accepting  their  pefsorii 
as  risliieoiis :  not  lor  any  thing  wrouylu  in  iii>  ni,  or  done  by 
tiieiii,  but  lor  Clirisi's  s.ike  iilone  :  not  by  iinpiiiinj;  lailh  it- 
self, ihe  act  of  liclieviiii.',  or  any  oilier  evui:gtlical  obedience 
to  thcMi  as  I  lair  rii;lu<oii.-;ness  ;  but  !y  iii'pu'ing  ihe  obidi* 
ence  and  satisracliuii  ol  Christ  unto  iheiii,  tliey  leeeiving  and 
resiiiig  on  hiin  :iiid  his  rigliteonsni  ss  tiy  liiiili  :  which  luith 
they  have  not  of  iliemselvi!--;  it  is  tlipyilt  of  God. 

riere  (he  Luo  book;?  cimie  in  direct  collis-i  n.  Tliey 
Cut  .1  ^o>^!  eiicli  oiluT.  It  liiiili  is  'lie  <i\\i  ol  Gofl,  is  it 
on  .'ir.L  ol"  llie  initiii  ?  or  is  it  not  a  peniuxni-ni  princi- 
ple ?     Tlic  l.iPiicr  cdlccliittii  (72  and  73)  Sii}s  : 

Jusiif.irig  faiili  is  a  saving  grace,  \\r()iii;lii  in  the  heart  of 
a  sinner  by  the  Spirit  and  vvord  of  G-d,  whereby  he,  being 
convinc:(i  of  his  fe in  and  tnisery,  and  of  the  dit^ability  in 
himself  and  all  other  creaiiires  lo  recover  him  out  of  his  lust 
condition,  not  oily  as?i  nieih  to  t:  e  iruih  o!  ih('  promise  of 
thegospil,  but  rteeivt.il>  and  les'cih  njton  Christ  and  his 
hgli:eoiisiiess,  ihertiii  held  Torih,  for  pnidoii  of  sin,  and  for 
the  aecep'iiig  and  ucfonniii.g  of  his  peison  ri^ihitous  in  the 
eight  of  God  f;r  salvation 

Faiih  jiisiifits  a  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God,  not  because  of 
these  oiiiLT  graces  which  do  alwasa  aceompany  il,  or,  of 
good  works  that  ;ire  ilie  frriiis  ol  ir,  nor  as  it  the  griice  of 
laith,  or  any  .-ict  iherio',  were  iinpuitd  to  him  for  Ins  jusiifi- 
catioii;  but  fMily  as  it  is  an  instruiiunt  by  which  he  icccivtth 
and  appiii  ih  Ciiri?t  and  his  riglueousnesj. 

ijlJThf;  book  ol  Mr.  B  irnes  say.--,  lluit  Cailli  n  nn  act 
of  the  iiiiiid,  iiiid  tii.tl.  iliis  act  in  impuitd  l</r  nuJil- 
eousiie-1:?,  and  yet  dt.nics  iliKt  il  is  ii  work  and  that  a 
man  It;  ju:?iiiit(i  !ty  bis  works?,  lint  are  t-iti.plc  d  in- 
efs  ol'  mis  kind  to  be  |)leaded  aiiainsi  diliicullict!  in- 
evitably growinir  out  ol  a  man's  t^yslt  ni '  Faith  is 
represenieJ  in  our  conlession  as  an  nbiitin-  princi- 
ple. A  man  is  eiiiled  a  day-laborer  ti(»iii  the  iQCt 
that  he  labors  dail> — IVoiii  bis  babiiiial  couree  of 
action  :  tiiuf  jiitit  so  a  man  is  called  a  believer. 

For  Jst-riplure  auliioriiies  I  refer  to, 

E)>h.  iii,  8.  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved,  through  faith  ;  and 
ihai  n.>t  of  joiirsclv.  s-.  u  is  the  gi.l  of  God. 

Here,  as  >ve  all  know,  the  ainetedent  may  be  either 
"salvali-Jti"  or  '■r.tilli,"  both  wliieli  word.--  jirecede  it 
in  liie  senleriee  ;  and  the  et!'ei-.i  will  be  the  same  in 
enb-^tani  e,  eilber  way.  ile  iiiliidi  s,  unquestionably, 
to  r.iilh  a.s  u  principle  in  the  souls'  ol  believers?.  The 
laniru  life  i^  never  i'llcrjjretrd  as  rel'i  rrinjj  lo  an  in- 
sulate i  aet  ol  the  kind,  but  to  a  princijile.  Uy  that 
iaiih,  abitlinir  in  the  iniiul.  we  inkt:  ilie  bread  vt'  lile; 
we  lake  Christ  lor  ourselves  for  jusiiilcalion  and  life 
eternal.    Ai^ain, 

il  Cor.  iv,  VI.  We  havirr?  the  sime  spirit  of  faiJii,  accord- 
ing as  n  is  written,  I  bt!i(  vtd,  and  lberelo;e  iiave  I  .«pokeB } 
we  also  btiieve  and  ihertfore  sjjeak. 

Here  p^ain  faith  is  the  principle  in  the  heart,  and 
therefore  it  is  an  act  in  the  man. 


MR.    BAFvNES.  125 

Luke  xvii,  5.  And  the  apostles  said  unto  llie  Lord,  Increase 
our  iaith. 

A  priii.'iple  may  be  etrenKthened :  but  how  an  act 
of  the  iniiiii  can  be,  1  cannot  conceive. 

Rom.  i,  16,  17.  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ :  tor  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every 
one  that  believeth ;  to  the  Jew  first  and  also  to  ilie  Greek. 

For  therein  is  the  riijliteousiiess  of  God  revealed  from  faith 
to  faith  :  as  it  is  written,  The  just  shall  live  by  faith. 

Here  we  find  ai^uin  the  same  doctrine.  God  by  hia 
renevvin,^  Spirit  produces  in  the  rej^eneralionof  the 
man  a  disposition  which,  before,  was  not  there,  to 

ferforni  an  act  lor  wliich,  bolbre,  he  Jtad  no  ability. 
t  i.s  not  until  after  his  conversion  that  he  has  both 
the  ability  and  the  disposition. 

James  ii,  17.  Even  so  faith,  if  it  kath  not  works,  is  dead, 
being  alone. 

You  profess  to  be  a  believer:  if  you  have  faith  in 
you,  it  will  show  iiseU  by  ac.ion.  It  is  a  livinsj princi- 
ple; a  principle  that  works.  Docs  ne  eay  an  act  of 
the  mind  is  dead  ?  no:  but  a  principle  which  ought 
to  be  alive,  it  is  like  the  living^  principle  in  a  tree. 
Faith  will  show  itself  by  works.  I  cannot  see  how  it 
can  be  an  act  merely :  lor  when  an  act  is  done,  it  is 
gone.  And  how  will  the  language  of  this  text  apply 
to  such  a  theory  ? 

James  ii,  26.  For  as  the  boJy  without  the  spirit  is  dead 
so  faith  without  works  is  dead  also. 

We  all  know  what  is  meant  by  a  dead  faith.  There 
is  the  principle  of  failh  in  the  mind  before  conver- 
sion: but  when  a  man  is  converted,  lie  has  anew 
principle  of  action,  a  principle  of  lioly  action. 

Galatiano  V;  6.  For  in  Jesus  Christ  neither  circumcision 
availoth  anything  nor  uncircamcision  ;  but  failh  which  work- 
eth  by  love. 

I  cannot  understand  this  passage,  if  faith  is  merely 
an  act  of  the  mind.  Here  is  a  principle  "back  of" 
the  act — a  principle  which  grasps  the  tcfjtimony  of 
God.  It  worketh.  It  i^  a  principle  which  has  its 
work,  its  task  to  be  perlormed.  The  Bible  doctrine 
clearly  is  that  faith  is  a  principle  in  the  mind,  just  as 
love  is. 

And  now  I  think  we  have  come  to  a  place  wliere 
we  are  called  to  put  oH'our  shoes  from  our  feet.  Thus 
far  we  have  been  but  as  in  the  outskirts  of  the  great 
system  of  revealed  truth.  We  now  approximate  the 
citadel.  Let  us  pass  in  and  see  what  we  shall  find 
there.  Shall  we  see  brother  Barnes  there  ?  Shall 
we  find  him  on  the  alert  and  at  his  post,  with  his  gun 
on  his  shoulder  and  his  match  in  his  hand  ?  Hold, 
if  you  touch  that  you  will  blow  up  the  whole  Ibrtress! 
your  piece  is  painted  at  the  magazine  !  Such  is  the 
11 


1*26  TRIAL   OJf 

doctrine  \vc  are  now  about  to  examine  ;  if  tliis  is  <le- 
stroyetl  all  is  gone.  What  I  mean  to  eay  is  that  the 
doctrines  o(  a  covenant  ul'  workd  and  a  covenant  of 
grace  are  lund.unenial  doctrines  in  chrietianity.  If 
you  destroy  them  you  blow  up  the  syblem,  and  n)y 
poor  hope  must  evaporate  amidst  the  lumes  ol  tho 
explosion.  But  it  bhall  not  be  so.  God  is  iaithfuL 
The  foundation  ol  his  church  "  etandelh  sure." 

Charge  V. 

The  fifth  charge  is  : 

Mr.  Barnes  denies  '■  iliat  Gjd  entered  into  Covenant  with 
Adam  cons'.iiuiiiiy  him  a  I'edLri'l  or  covenant  head,  and  re- 
prcsernative  lo  all  his  natural  descendants. " 

I  have  labored  to  arrange  these  charges  as  near/y 
in  the  order  of  a  malhemaiical  demonstration  as  pos- 
eible,  ahvays  slating  beforehand  lo  what  point  1  meant 
to  direct  my  prool.  But  there  are  three  or  iour 
charges  which  now  follow  ttiat  unavoidably  run  inta 
each  other.    My  first  proof  is, 

P.  114.  '■  From  those  lemaiks  it  is  clear  that  the  apostle 
does  not  refer  to  the  man  here  fn/rn  any  idea  that  there  was 
any  particular  covenant  transaction  with  him;  but  that  ha 
means  to  speak  of  it  in  the  us;;al  popular  s.  nse;  referring  to 
hiin  as  heiiig  th?  fountain  or  ail  the  woes  that  sin  has  intro- 
duce I  in'.o  ihrc  world." 

The  court  will  observe  that  this  is  said  in  that  part 
of  Mr.  Barnci?'  book  in  'vhicii  lie  is  discussing  the 
much  disputed  passage  in  the  5?h  of  Romans,  in  which 
the  apiKstle  insiitutes  a  parallel  between  Adam  and 
Chrisi :  and  he  declares  that  we  have  no  evidence  that 
God  made  any  covenant  with  Adam.  He  has  met 
the  objection  that  ihe  woman  was  first  in  the  trans- 
gression, and  the  language  addressed  by  the  Al- 
mighty to  the  man  ought  rather  lo  have  been  ad- 
dressed to  her. 

My  f-econd  proof  is  from  p.  123. 

P.  123.  "  The  most  comrnoti  (explanation)  has  bffen  that 
Adam  was  the  repres:  ntative.  of  tlie  race  ;  that  lie  was  a  cove- 
nant head,  and  that  his  sin  was  imputed  t.i  his  posterity,  and 
that  ihi'y  were  held  liable  to  punishment  for  it,  as  if  they  had 
committed  it  thcmselrcs.  But  lo  this  there  are  gren^  and  ia- 
aupcr.ibl'j  objections. 

(1.)  Tneru  ia  not  one  word  of  it  in  the  Bible.  Neither  tha 
,  terms  representative,  covenant,  or  impute  are  ever  applied  to 
the  trans  iction  in  the  aacrcd  scriptures.  (2.)  It  is  a  raert 
philosophical  theory." 

I  need  go  no  further.  The  third  proof  is  from 
p.  115. 

P.  lib,  as  quot,>d  under  the  second  charge,  which  see. 

I  rel'f  r  in  this  charge  to  all  that  portion  of  thf* 
book  which  attempts  lo  prove  that  Adam  was  igno- 
rant of  mor.il  relations  ;  and  here,  in  consistency 
wiih  m  ti  idea  ]\Ir.  Barnes  denies  that  Adam  under- 
stood there  was  any  covenant  made  with  him  at  all. 


MR.    BARN  IS.  127 

My  fourl,h  proof  is  from  pp.  120  and  121, 

Pp.  120,  121.  "A  comparisori  is  also  instituted  between 
Adam  nud  (Jhnst  in  1  Cor.  xv,  ■*2— 25.  The  rt^ason  is,  not 
that  Adam  was  the  r-presenla  pdf.a  .head  of  the  hu- 

nicn  race,  ahoiit  vvhioli  the  apostle  says  nolliing,  iiiid  which 
ia  not  even  ijnplicd,  but  that  he  was  the  firsi  of  the  race;  he 
was  tlie  fountain,  the  iicad,  tlie  father;  and  the  constijucnceB 
of  that  first  act  introducing  sin  into  the  world,  could  be  seen 
every  where.  The  words  rf.prcscnlalivc  dinAfcd  ra'  head  are 
never  applied  to  Adam  in  the  l>ible.  The  reason  is,  that  the 
word  rcpresmlativi'.  implies  an  idea  which  could  not  haveex- 
iflted  in  the  c.isc — Ihe  consent  of  those  icho  are  r  presented. 
Besides  the  Bible  do.  s  not  le.ich  that  tiicy  acted  m  him,  or 
by  him  ;  or  ihit  lie  acted  for  tliem.  No  passage  has  ever  yet 
been  found  that  stated  this  doctrine." 

Mr.  Bariies,  in  lii.s  address  to  S.vnod,  pul  his  liand 
on  the  prool'coi)/  era  nevvc(iilionoi'hi.s  bouiv  in  wliich 
he  said  some  oi  (iic  cxoeptioriable  pass;i^es  had  been 
taken  away.  I  do  not.  tliiiik  I  atii  called  lo  iioiice  any 
eucli  dill'erences,  i'ur  ihe  point,  and  Uicoidy  point,  be- 
fore this  Synod  is;  thit;:  does  the  te.^liinoiiy  adduced 
before  ihe  Presbytery  support  the  char.ire  tuivanced 
before  that  body?  I  have  to  show  that  heitJL-cts 
the  covenant  of  works  ;  and  in  doiuir  so,  I  ani  not 
called  to  notice  his  emendations;  e.-^pecially  as  he 
declared  in  your  presence  iliat  he  had  nuide  no  cliange 
ia  the  doctrines  ol'  the  book.  He  holds  the  same 
opinion  still.  As  the  grand  leading;  truths^  remain 
the  same,  mere  verbal  alterations  can  be  of  no  con- 
eequcnce  to  me  or  to  the  S>tiod. 

1  need  not  comtnent  on  what  I  have  quoted  above. 
He  does  reject  the  representative  relation  between 
Adam  and  his  posterity.  1  know  it  will  be  said  that 
Jie  does  not  deny  this,  but  o:  ly  denies  that  it  is  tausht 
here.  i>ut  to  this  I  h  ive  only  to  rci)eat  what  1  said 
before  about  the  possibility  ol  thus  denying-  in  detail, 
until  a  doctrine  is  tlcnied  clean  out  ot  the  Bible.  Ana 
yet  the  m;in  liolds  no  error  !  Oh  no  I  But  1  direct  the 
titlenlion  oi'the  court  to  the  lact  that  this  is  one  of 
the  passaires  relied  on  by  the  church  to  piove  the 
covenant  relation  of  the  two  covenant  heads,  Adam 
and  Christ,  to  their  respective  bodies;  and  no  man 
has  a  ri'^ht  thug  to  take  au  ay  tiie  pillars  ol  our  liope. 
A  doctrisie  stands  on  seven  pillars  ;  the  destroyer 
comes  to  one  and  says:  "  This  does  not  support  the 
house,"  and  lie  hews  that  liovvn.  He  then  goes  to 
the  next,  and  says:  "  Tiiie  does  not  support  the 
house,"  and  he  hews  ihat  down.  And  so  one  year  he 
takes  one  away,  and  the  next  year  anotlier,  until  at 
length  the  building  falls  to  the  fi:round.  There  is  no 
man  who  possesses  an  ingenuous  mind  but  will  ad- 
mit that  he  <loes  rejec:  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  co- 
venant of  works.  He  in  lact  admitted  this  charge. 
He  never  set  up  a  denial  ot  it. 

My  fifth  proof  is  from  page  128. 


128  TRIAL    OF 

p.  1'28.  (2)  "  Nothing  is  said  of  a  covenant  wi'h  him(Adam.) 
No  where  in  the  Scriptures  is  the  term  covenant  applied  to 
any  iransaction  with  Adam.  (3.)  All  that  is  established  licra 
is  the  simple  fact  that  Ada>n  siniitil.  and  that  this  made  it 
certain  that  all  his  posterity  would  be  sinners.  Beyond  thisr 
the  language  of  the  apostle  docs  not  go;  and  ;ill  else  that  has 
been  said  of  this  is  the  result  of  mere  philosophical  specula- 
tion. (4)  This  fad  is  one  that  is  apparent ;  andth.it  accords 
with  all  ihe  analogy  in  the  moral  government  of  God.  The 
drunkard  secures  commonly  as  a  result  that  hisfiiuily  will 
bo  reduced  to  beggaty,  want,  and  wo.  His  sin  is  commonly 
the  certain  occasion  of  their  being  sinners;  and  the  immedi- 
ate cause  of  their  loss  of  properly  and  comfort,  and  of  their 
being  overwhelmed  in  wretehedntss  and  grief.  A  murderer 
will  entail  disgrace  and  shame  on  his  family." 

Her,e  is  the  principle, tliat  it  is  in  respect  to  the  phy- 
sical constitiuion  ol  man,  that  Adam  is  the  liead  oi" 
the  race,  and  not  in  rej^arc!  to  any  moral  constiiulion. 
He  asks  wJiether  the  nature  ol  a  drunkard  runs 
down  to  his  children,  tiUailinj?  ealamily  on  tlie  prin- 
ciple of  representation  ?  I  apprehend  it  does  ;  in  the 
mana.i^emcnt  of  the  family  properly  their  Ifilher  re- 
presents iliem,  and  ihey  are  thrown  destitute  on  the 
world.  But  cannot  you  point  to  the  sons  of  a  man 
who  was  a  drunkard,  but  who  nevertheless  take  a 
high  and  glorious  stand  in  the  church?  It  does  not 
follow  that  because  the  father  was  iutennperate,  the 
children  must  be  rained.  Some  oi"  tho  greatest  and 
best  men  on  this  continent  liad  such  for  their  parents. 
So  far  indeed  as  his  parent  is  hi.i  representative  he 
is  ad'ected  by  it.  If  he  leaves  a  debt  unpaid  he  robs 
his  son.  It  IS  not  necessary  after  baEing  my  argu- 
ment on  tliis  passage  lo  press  the  nuint  that  thie  cove- 
nant of  works  is  denied.  Ko  man  can  read  the  book 
and  not  j)erceive  that  the  writer  does  intend  not  only 
to  deny  but  to  scout  tlie  tloctrine. 
Charge  VI. 

I  will  now  pass  over  that  branch  of  the  charges 
which  relates  to  the  covenants,  and  take  up  those 
which  follow.  There  arc  five  of  these,  all  intimate- 
ly connected,  and  1  v/iil  take  them  up  together. 

My  sixth  charge  is,  that  Mr.  Barnes  denies  "  that  the  first 
Bin  of  Adaiii  is  imputed  to  his  posterity. " 

My  seventh  charge  is,  that  Mr.  B.  denies  "  that  mankind 
are  guilty,  i.  e.  liable  to  punishmrnt  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
Adam." 

My  eighth  charge  is  that  Mr.  B.  denies  "  that  Christ  suffer- 
ed the  proper  penalty  of  the  law,  as  the  vicarious  substitute 
«f  his  people,  and  thus  took  away  legally  their  sins  and  pur- 
chased pardo;:." 

My  ninth  charge  is  that  Mr,  B.  denies  '■  thnt  the  righteous- 
ness, i.  e.  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  law,  is  imputed 
:to  his  people  for  their  jusliQcation  ;  so  that  they  are  righteous 
n  the  eye  of  the  law,  and  therefore  justified." 

From    the   intimate    connexion    between    \\\^s^. 


ItiH.   BARNES.  129 

chargef?  the  synod  will  perceive  the  difilculty  of 
eeparaiin;^  tiie  remiirks  on  eacli. 

Mr.  B.iriit'ri  diMiic:^  (.li.il  llie  first,  pin  of  Adam  was 
iinjjutcd  to  lii.s  ]jii.sit'rii,y.     Injjci^e  10  he  hiiys 

p.  11).  "A  niel;inc'i.)ly  instance  of  tins  [bubstiiutine;  theory 
fjr  facil  wo  have  in  tlie  account  vvliicli  the  nposile  t;ivc.s  (ch, 
V.)  ahoul  th«  tfilct  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  The  sini()lc./^/c<  is 
stated  that  that  t:iii  was  fiilJDVvcd  hy  the  sin  and  nun  of  all 
his  posleiitv-  Vtt  he  ufi'  rs  nii  cxplan  tion  of  ihc  p.c.  Ho 
Icuvcs  it  a>  n'du!>it!d)^:;  ;ind  as  not  denrindins  un  c.splana- 
tion  iti  lii3  nr^;i!m';ni,  perii.ipa  as  not  adinitrmg  it.  I'his  ia 
the  wliole  of  liisdocirine  on  ttiat  snlj^ct.  Ytt  nmii  have 
not  betn  sansliod  with  iIku.  They  have  sonyht  fur  a  ilieory 
to  riccouiU  for  it.  And  many  sui-post;  they  liavc  lound  it  in 
the  d.iuirini;  thai  the  siii  of  Adam  is  impuicr/,  or  set  over  by 
nn  iirUiirary  anangojneni  to  tic!nt;s  otlierwiae  innocrin,  and 
thai  they  ;ire  h^ld  to  be  responsible  for  a  dted  conii/iitied  by 
a  mua  thousand!!  of  yi-ars  before  they  were  bovn.  Tiii.i  is 
the  theory,  and  aieii  insensibly  foig.t  that  it  is  mere  theory." 

I  prcsiiaic  this  was  writUMi  after  the  rest  of  the 
booit,  uinl  theretbrti  after  the  most  mature- considera- 
tion, now  if  this  pis-Srtfrc  docs  iimt  poi^itiveiy  reject 
Uie  (ioctriiie  of  a  css)veiutiit  wiili  Adam,  and  rlit  con- 
ecq'.i.'tit  imiJiitalioii  of  Ins  !^■ill  to  his  posicriiy  I  am 
prisatly  miiiuki'^i.  He  tala's  up  i he  very  l;ii).;,'ua.;?o 
of  your  (•onfcs.?ion  tirid  denies  ils  iruiii.  lit;  pro- 
nniiiices  it  "  mere  theory,"  and  maitiiains  that  we 
cannot  he  personally  accoanlalde  lor  (he  deed  of  a 
man  c-jniuiii.led  thotisands  oi  years  before  we  were 
born. 

Ia  pii^^e  117  he  Sa3s 

p.  117.  (i  )  "  It.  coMiports  with  tlie  apostle's  argi'm-nt  to 
state  a  cause  tc/ii/ all  died,  and  not  to  state  thai  nun  sinned 
in  Ailai:n.  It  wonld  req  urc  an  additional  statement  ut  see 
how //iai  could  lie  a  cause.  (4.)  The  expression,  'in  whom 
ail  have  siuaed,' oaveys  no  intelligible  idea.  As  men  had 
not  an  e.visrence  ih.  ii  in  any  sense,  they  could  UMt  then  sin. 
What  idea  is  conveyed  to  intn  of  comtnon  undtrsinnding, 
b J  the  expression,  '  they  sitiiitd  in  hiin'i'  Tne  meaning  of 
the  expression,  therefore,  clearly,  is,  because  all  have  sinned 
all  die."  , 

"  I  understand  it  therefore,  as  refening  to  the  fact,  that  men 
Bin,  sin  in  their  own  person:^ — kin  themselves — as  indetd,  how 
can  they  sin  in  any  othtr  v\  ay  7— and  that  thtrcfon  they 
die." 

Here  the  author  quotes  the  very  lan^ua^e  of  the 
Confcsssion  of  Faith  and  then  sneers  it  oui  <d'  coun- 
tenfince. 

Oi)  page  119  we  fltiJ  him  Sciyinff 

p.  119.  "The  difference  ri.ntemplated,  Rom.  x.  14,  is  not 
that  Adam  was  rui  ac/i/a/  siuner,  and  tliat  /Aey  hju  tiimed 
only  by  imputation.  l''or  (I  )  The  e.\pressioti  lo  sni  Uy  im- 
putatiiu  IS  uninieilij-'ible  ;irul  conveys  no  idea.  (2.)  The 
cpostle  makes  no  such  disunction  and  conveys  no  nn  n  idea. 
(3.)  His  very  object  is  il.ncrtnt.  li  is  to  show  thai  ihiy  wert 
11* 


130  TRIAL    oy 

actual  sinners  ;  thatUicy  transgressed  law;  and  the  proof  of 
this  is  iliat  tliey  died.  (4  )  Ti  is  utterly  absanl  to  suppose 
tUat  inuii  iroia  the  time  of  Adam  to  Moses  wore  sinners  only 
by  impulalion,^' 
\\^  p.  JW6:  "Dentil  niijn^d;  and  this  proves  that  they  were 
sinners.  11  it  should  be  said  that  the  death  ol  infants  would 
prove  that  they  were  sinners  also,  1  answer — (a)  That  this 
was  an  inltreneij  '.hich  the  apostle  does  not  draw,  and  for 
which  he  is  not  rc.-ponsible.  li  is  not  afFuined  by  linn,  (b) 
If  it  did  reter  lo  inlaiUs,  wbM  wouid  it  provtj'.'  Mot  that  the 
sin  of  Adam  wns  imputed,  nut  tlat  tney  were  personally 
guilty  and  transt^ressors.  For  this  is  the  only  point  to  which 
the  argument  'ends.  Tho  apustle  says  not  one  word  about 
imputation.  He  doe.^  no'  even  loier  lo  inlanis  by  n.ime  j  nor 
does  he  lure  introduce  at  all  the  doctrine  of  imputation.  All 
this  is  iiure  philosojihy  iniroduceu  to  cxpla  n  Uillieulli-S ;  but 
Wiieilc  ■  true  or  false  ;  whether  tl'.c  theory  exp'ains  or  em- 
barrasses the  subject,  it  13  not  needful  nere  to  niquire.  (3.) 
The  vcri/  cxprcssior:.  hcrj  is  against  the  sintpo&ltion  that  in- 
fants arc  intended,  anu  t'ra'.  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to 
them.  'Ihc  dociruic  of  imputai'.in  has  bet.r>,  that  infants- 
were  personally  gnilty  01  AJain'y  sin;  that  tiiey  had  ".«in- 
ited  in  hitn;'  iliac  then  was  a  personal  identity  c  instituted 
between  ihcin  and  Adani,  (see  L'd  wards  on  orii^inal  sin)  ;  and 
that  tiiereliro  his  sm  was  itieirs  as  reahy  and  ti  ily  as  if  ccim- 
miited  by  thijmSLiVes.  Yei  hero  the  apjs'i-j  says  thnt  those 
of  wh.'in  liz  was  Sficnkir.y  had  no/*  sniH(E  1  'after  'he  sim- 
ilitude 01  Aduin's  tr:uis>i!rcfaSion.  Bu.  if  tiie  doctrine  of  im- 
pulatiun  be  trae,  it  is  cert;iin  that  they  not  only /wg' sinned 
after  tlie  similitude  of  his  transgression,  but  !iad  sinned  the 
Vtry  identical  sin.  It  was  precisely  tika  }inn  ;  it  was  the 
very  thing  itseif;  and  they  were  ani?vver;ible  for  that  very  sia 
cs  their  own.  This  doclrincj  lheref;rc,  cannot  bo  intended 
here."  / 

If  the  aurhoivdji  not  set  up  to  reject  the  doctrine 
of  tho  iinputatioa  of  Adam's  sin, this  language  is  very 

On  pas^e  121 ; 

p.  I'il.  "  J\oi  have  we  a  right  to  assume  that  this  [ver.  IB] 
teachf  s  the  doctrine  of  tha  imputation  ot  the  sin  of  Adam  to 
his  posterity.  For  (1)  the  apostle  .■'nys  nothing  of  it.  (2) 
*rhai  docirine  is  nt'thing  but  an  edorl  to  explain  I'le  manner 
of  an  event  which  the  apostle  Paul  did  'lot  ihiiik  it  proper  to 
attemj)l  to  e.\plai;i.  {'i)  That  doctrine  is  in  fact  no  cxplana- 
lion.  It  i'j  int'oducing  an  acldiiional  diffirul'v.  For  to  say 
that  1  am  guilty  of  the  sin-of  another  in  winch  I  had  no. 
ugeiicy,  is  no  expldhdiion,  but  is  involving  me  in  additional 
difficalty  still  more  perplexing,  to  ascrtaiu  how  such  a  doc- 
trine can  possibly  be  just." 

The  very  old  Armitiianarframent — "  How'can  it  be 
Jast?"  tlie  same  irtrument  ueeJ  by  Pelngius;  and 
which  has  been  battered  down  ten  thou-^and  times  hy 
the  hosts  of  I'.-e  Lord. 

On  paj^e  127  he  sayj  : 

p.  127.  "  The  word  is  in  no  instance  used  to  cxprifss  th»- 
idca  of  imputing  that  to  one  which  belongs  to  another.    It 


Mil.    BARNES.  ISI 

here  either  means,  that  this  was  by  a  consHlulion  of  divine 
appointmerd  that  they  in  fact,  became  sinners,  or  simply  de- 
clares they  vjare  so  in  fact.  There  is  not  the  slightest  inii- 
Diation  that  it  was  by  imputation." 

On  pago  128  he  says: 

p.  128.  As  quoted  under  Ciiarge  5th. 

1  cannot  liei?itate  a  nioiuetit  to  believe  that  anj 
man  vvlio  redds  this  will  say  lliat  the  dcsijrn  ol"  the 
writer  was  to  reject  tlie  doctrine  of  imputation.  He 
does  clearly  reject  it,  in  many  paesafres  of  his  book. 
If  his  |)lea  was  now  belbre  you, you  would  soon  per- 
ceive tliat  he  does  ditl'er  in  senliment  from  the  Con- 
fession ol  Faith.  One  couiplaitit  iiL^ain.^t  your  pro- 
ceeding- is  that  Mr.  J3araes  is  not  allowed  to  reply  to 
each  individual  cliari^e  separately.  To  this  charge 
I  am  sure  he  would  liave  pleaded  guilty,  but  would 
thei^  liave  put  in  a  jus-tification  on  the  ground  of  non- 
relevancy,  which  atnounts  to  a  defence  of  the  thiufj 
charged. 

i  now  refer  you  to  the  standards  ofour  church: 

Confession  of  Failh,  chap.  vi.  sections  3d  and  'lih. 

3.  They  being  die  root  of  ail  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin 
was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  iii  sin  and  corrupted  nature 
conveyoii  lo  ail  their  posterity,  descending  from  them  by  or- 
dinary generation.     «« 

4.  From  :hi^,  prigliVal  corruption  whereby  we  are  utterly  in- 
disposed, disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  al!  good,  and  wholly 
incliitdd  to  a'J  evi',  do  proceed  all  actual  trangressioiis. 

Larg.  Cat.  22.  The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam  as  a 
public  person,  not  for  himself  only,  bat  for  his  posterity,  all 
iuankiiid  descending  from  iiirn  by  ordinary  generation,  sin- 
ned in  him,  and  fi>ll  with  him  in  that  first  transgression. 

25.  The  sinfulness  of  that  esiiUe  whereinto  man  f-ll,  con- 
eistcth  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  fiist  sin,  the  want  of  that 
righteousness  wherein  he  was  created,  and  the  corruption  of 
his  nature,  whereby  ho  is  utieily  indisposed,  disabkd,  and 
made  opposite  unto  all  that  is  t-piritually  good,  and  wholly 
inclined  to  all  evd,  and  that  continually  ;  which  is  commonly 
called  original  sin,  and  from  which  do  proceed  all  actual 
transgressions. 

Short.  Cat.  18.  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto 
man  fell,  consists  in  tlie  gudt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of 
original  righteousness,  and  tlia  corruption  of  his  whole  nature, 
which  is  commonly  called  ori'Uial  sin  ;  together  with  all 
actual  transgressions  which  proceed  from  ii. 

Charge  VII. 
The  seventh  charge  is  in  these  terms: 
Mr.  B.  denies  "  that  mankind  are  guilty,  L  e.  liable  to  pun- 
ishment on  account  of  the  sm  of  Adam." 

And  my  first  proof  is, 

p.  123.  "There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  con- 
demned  to  eternal  death,  or  held  to  be  guilty  of  his  sin,  with- 
out participation  of  their  own,  or  without  personal  sin,  any 
more  than  there  is  that  they  are  approved  by  the  work  of 


132  TRIAl   OF 

Christ,  or  lield  to  be  personally  deserving,  without  embrac- 
ing hi^  olFcr,  and  rcctiving  him  as  a  Saviur." 

And  my  sccoruijproof, 

Page  127.  'i'lie  Wind  is  in.  vo  inalance  used  to  express  the 
idea  of  imputing  thai  to  one  ulich  belongs  to  ano'htr.  I(  hero 
eillier  meiiiis  iliai  itiis  wusbt/  a  cumlitution  0/ divijic  aipoint- 
ment  ihat  tiiey  in  fact  became  sinners',  or  dimply  dtclarc» 
that  tlity  tcire  so  in  fact.  T liere  is  noi  the  shi;lucst  intima- 
tion tliut  It  was  by  iinpuiaiion.  The  whcile  scope  t)f  the 
argument  i-*,  inoreover,  uyaiiist  this;  fir  ihe  oljcct  of  the 
apos'io  IS  to  show  not  that  lin  y  were  charged  wiih  tlie  sin  of 
anoihor,  but  tliat  they  were  iji  laci  !>in:iers  tlicinselves.  If  it 
means  that  thty  wire  condjniiied  for  /lis  act,  without  any 
concurrence  of  iheir  own  will,  ilien  the  correspoiidcnt  part 
will  be  true,  tiiai  all  are  tonsiiiuted  rij,'hlcous  in  tiie  same 
way;  and  ihns  ihe  doctrine  0;  uiiivcrial  saivation  will  be 
inev.ia  le.  Uui  as  1  one  nru  consiiiuttd  riylittous  who  do 
not  vol. latarily  avail  theins.lves  of  the  prov.sions  of  mercy, 
$0  it  follows  lint  those  wh  j  art;  Cijndi.nincJ,  are  not  con- 
deiiined  for  tlic  sin  of  another  wuhout  their  own  cjiicurrcHCc, 
nor  u.i  (ss  thty  pertfoivally  deserve  if. 

Si-nurs. —  li'disgressois;  iliosc  who  deserve  to  be  punish rd 
It  dots  not  naun  ihose  wlioaie  condiinccd  lor  tl-e  sin  of 
ano  iu-r;  but  tlu  so  who  are  violators  of  the  law  ol  God.  All 
who  are  cjiidenined  inn  sinners,  'i'hey  are  not  inncccriL  per- 
eons  coiidenintd  for  the  ciiine  of  anoil^  r.  Men  may  Ke  in- 
volv-  .1  ID  the  consequences  of  ths  gins  of  others  wihont  being 
10  bl. line,  the  co!.sni  leiices  of  the  cii;nts  of  a  iiuuderor,  a 
drui.kan!,  a  |)iiate,  inay  pass  over  from  ihim,  ;  nd  oflcct 
thoisuid.o,  and  whelm  them  in  iu:n.  iSul  this  docs  nut 
jTOve  that  ihey  are  blame  worthy." 

Here  is  an  explicit.  po?iiion,  and  well  froardod,  in- 
teiid'td  K)  shut  uut  the  idoti  ol'  ai:y  one  rniiii'.s  bt-in^ 
puiii.-5ltt(i  lor  lite  sin  of  nnoLher.  He  s:i>s  iiicii  may 
euli'cr  in  roiist  q:ience  of  aiiolher's   pin,  t-ut   not  b© 

f)u,ii-.!iedfi)r  ii.  I'hu  writer  places  till  the  evil?  which 
lave  lUlleii  upon  our  race  in  cunsitiiiGnce  of  Adanri'a 
sin  Oil  the  suiiie  i'ouu.tix  as  those  vvliicli  I'all  011  chil- 
dren i,i  f.ons- (pienec  oi' the  vices  ol  tlitir  imnttediafe 
j).ir<  iil.'S ;  jii<t  as  sliaiiie,  lo-:.s  ol  projier.y,  &.c.  Jail 
\ilion  the  riiihireri  of  a  ilrunkard.  It  doi's  nppear  to 
me  that  lie  con:?iders  our  relation  to  Adam  to  bo 
thi.-;,  and  noihinj:  ii;ore.    On  pa^e  123  he  tays: 

Page  123.  "  Variccis  attempts  have  been  mtide  to  explain 
this.  Tnc  most  coiivnion  has  been  that  Atint  wos  tho  rcprc- 
eeniativeof  \hi  race;  tlial  he  was  a  covenant  lira  I,  ar.d  that 
his  sin  was  imputed  to  his  posterity,  and  thai  they  wcru  held 
liabl-j  to  piinishuieiU  for  it  as  if  thty  had  Cuinntitt-d  it  them- 
ficlves.  lint  to  this  ihere  are  great  and  in?ii[)erab'e objcclions. 
•**  (3)  U  cxjilains  nothing.  The  difficMliy  stiM  rem;  ins. 
It  is  certainly  a.s  difli.-iilt  to  S'c  how,  in  a  jusj  aiiniinisiration, 
the  Sins  of  tlie  guilty  s-houUi  be  chargud  on- tin  innf  cent,  aa 
to '.oinemplaic  Simply  thennivers-d  lact  that  the  conduct  of 
one  man  may  inv.jlve  his  famdy  in  the  con«i  qui  nets.  (4)  It 
adds  another  d!.Ti:ulty  to  the  subject.  It  noi  only  explain* 
nothing,  removts  no  perplexity,  but  it  compels  us  at  onc«  ta 


MR.   BARNES.  133 

ask  tlie  question,  how  can  this  be  just  T  How  can  it  be  right 
to  chiirgc  the  sins  of  the  guity  oti  those  who  had  no  partici- 
pation in  them'?  How  could  millions  be  responsible  for  the 
sins  of  one  who  acted  long  before  they  had  an  existence,  and. 
of  whose  act  they  had  no  consciousness,  and  in  which  they 
had  no  p;irticipalion'}" 

Here  is  the  same  idea  again.  It  is  woven  in  bo(h 
warp  and  wool"  of  this  production.  It  is  part  ol  his 
system.  "  How  can  this  be  just?"  Why,  sir,  wJio  ol' 
us  has  ever  had  a  conlrovorsy  witli  an  Arminian, 
and  has  not  found  that  thi.s  is  itic  very  first  ohjeclion 
tiiat  mcoUs  him  ?  All  who  huild  their  doctrine  on  fi-ee 
will,  (that  tenet  so  ahly  sustained  at  a  iaie  trial  in 
Ohio,)  urge  on  us  the  same  arernmcnt.  It  is  the 
standing  objeclion  ol"  thoso.  who  dill'er  from  us.  Be 
it  that  it  is  false  loi?ic,  still  it  assumes  that  we  had 
not  any  participation  in  making  Adam  our  represent- 
ative, and  draws  from  that  fact  the  proof  that  we 
had  no  share  in  his  trespass.  1  need  adduce  no  more 
proof.  No  man  possessing  a  candid  mind  can  read 
those  which  1  have  quoted  without  the  o*?erv/helm- 
ing  conviction  that  the  writer  designed  to  reject  the 
doctrine  of  our  punishment  for  Adam's  first  sin. 

I  now  refer  you  to  our  standards  :  , 

Confession  vi.  3.  Tliey  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the 
gnilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and 
coirupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descending 
from  ihcm  by  ordinary  generation. 

G.  Every  sm,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a  transgres- 
sion of  the  righteous  law  of  God,  and  contrary  thereunto, 
doth  in  its  own  nature,  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby 
he  is  bound  over  to  the  wratli  of  Ood,  and  cuise  of  the  law, 
and  so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiritual, 
temporal,  and  eternal. 

Larger  Cii.  25.  (See  it  quoted  above  under  charge  6ih.) 

27.  The  fall  brought  upon  mankind  the  loss  of  communion 
widi  God,  his  disoleasure  and  curse  ;  so  as  we  are  by  nature 
children  of  wrath,  bond-slaves  to  Saian,  and  justly  liable  to 
all  punishments  in  this  world  and  tiiat  which  is  to  come. 

;Siiorter  Cat.  13.  (See  it  quoted  above  under  charge  6di.) 

19.  All  mankind  by  their  fall  lost  comnuinion  viith  God, 
are  under  his  wrath  and  curso,  and  m  ide  liable  to  all  die  mis- 
eries in  this  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  panis  of  hell  for- 
ever. 

And  under  the  fifth  charge  I  omitted  a  similar  re- 
ference.    It  is  as  follows  : 

Confession  of  Faiih  ch.  vii.  1.  The'distance  between  Goel 
and  the  creature  is  so  greai,  that  alihough  reasonable  crea- 
tures do  owe  obedience  unto  him  ;is  Iht'ir  Creator,  yet  they 
could  never  have  any  fruition  of  him  as  their  blessedness  and 
reward,  but  by  some  voluntary  condescension  on  God's  part, 
■which  he  natb  been  pleased  to  express  by  way  of  covenant. 

2.  The  first  covenant  made  with  man  was  a  covenant  of 
works,  wlierein  life  was  promised  to  Adam,  and  in  him  to  his 
posterity,  upon  condition  of  perfect  and  personal  obedience. 


131  TRIAL    OV 

Chapter  xix.  1.  God  gave  to  Adam  a  law,  as  a  covenant  of 
works,  by  wlucli  he  buuiiii  liicii,  and  all  his  posterity,  to  per- 
sonal, entire,  exact  and  purjieiual  obedience;  promised  life 
iipow  the  I'ulfiliing,  and  threatened  deatii  upon  ihu  breach  of 
it ;  and  endued  hini  with  power  and  ability  to  keep  it. 

l.ar^er  Catechism  2J.  The  providence  ol  God  toward  man 
in  the  estate  in  which  he  was  created,  was  the  placing  him  in 
paradise,  appoiniing  him  to  drets  it,  givinf;  him  liberty  to 
cat  of  the  Iruit  of  ttie  earth,  putting  the  creatures  under  his  do- 
minion, and  ordaiiiinj  marriaije  for  his  help ;  alFordins  him 
communion  wall  linnself;  instituting  the  SunbaUi ;  entering 
into  a  covenant  of  liiu  with  hini,  upon  coiidition  of  person- 
al, perfect  and  perpetual  obedience,  of  winch  the  tree  of  life 
was  a  pledge  ;  ami  loibiddmg  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  knowledge 
of  good  ana  evil  upon  the  ^uai  of  deatli. 

'42.  Tne  cov.;nuiit  being  made  with  Adam  as  a  public  per- 
son, not  for  hinuelf  only,  but  lor  Ins  posti-rity,  all  mankind 
descend. ng  from  hiin  by  ordinary  ^jeneiaiiun,  sinned  in  hitn, 
and  fell  witu  hnn  in  that  first  tran  -yre&sion. 

Shoner  Catechism,  12.  When  God  had  created  man,  he 
entered  into  a  covenant  of  life  v.hh  him,   upon  condition  of 

Eerfect  obedience  ;  foibulding  him  to  eat  of  ibe  tree  of  know- 
:dge  ff  good  and  evil  upon  the  i  ain  of  death. 
Itj.  Tlie  covenant  being   made   with  Adam,  not   only  for 
himself,  but  for  his  posterity  ;  all  mankind  descending  from 
him  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  hmi,  and  lell  with  him, 
in  ids  lirst  transgietsion. 

I  have  referred  you  to  these  passages  to  shew  that 
the  covcnj-iit  relation  ol"  Adatn  to  Ins  posterity  is  not 
only  the  dociiine  of  our  church  but  ti  leading,  Turida- 
mental  principle  in' the  whole  Presbi  icrian  system. 
It  is  otie  of  the  first  truths  taught  to  our  children 
when  they  learn  lo  lisp  the  Savior's  iianie  :  and  it  is 
a  doctrine  necessary  lo  be  understood  if  we  would 
understand  tiriiiht  any  other  ol"  the  doctrines  ol"  the 
new  and  well  ordered  covenant  by  which  our  salva- 
tion is  secured.  All  the  terms  ol"  a  covenant  are 
these:  A  covenant  is  an  a.iirecment — a  mutual 
agreement:  a  stipulation  and  re-slipulation  between 
parties,  ace<iiiii;aiiied  by  a  sanction  in  rase  of  its 
violation.  God  proniised  life,  and  accompanied  hia 
promise  with  a  commination  ol  death,  on  disobedi- 
ence. Life  for  obedience,  deatii  for  disobedience. 
These  were  the  terms  and  we  liave  Adam's  assent  to 
them.  1  do  not  say  it  was  in  all  respects  the  same 
sort  of  covenant  which  is  made  between  two  mea 
when  iliey  enter  into  an  a;.?reenient.  But  in  tbis 
covenant  Goii  did  proaiise  as  well  ;is  threaten.  Tlie 
law,  says  Paul,  was  "  tinlo  life.''''  The  only  objedioD 
to  such  an  iirran^enient  is,  that  the  parties  in  order 
to  make  surli  a  covenant,  mu^t  both  be  pre6enl,must 
both  be  f  (jual,  and  must  both  f'llly  assent  to  it.  But 
if  I  make  a  covenant  with  my  slave,  am  1  not  hound 
by  ii,  though  we  be  not  equal  ?  It  is  nol  necessary  to 
an  agreement  that  tlie  parlies  be  on  terms  of  perfect 


cqilality.  God  did  bow  his  heavens  and  come  down, 
and  for  man's  benefit  did  covenant  with  our  first 
parent.  None  c;in  doubt  that  Adam  did  covenant, 
and  that  the  v/hole  transaction  was  for  liis  benefit. 
He  could  not,  indftil,  refuse  the  covenant  witlmut 
Bin:  but  he  did  consent  to  it.  He  communicated  its 
terms  to  his  wile  ;  lor,  tiiat  she  had  a  knowledge  of 
them  is  plain  I'roin  iier  rephes  to  the  serpent,  in 
which  she  refers  to  the  penal  sanction  of  the  cove- 
nant. But  ot  the  tree  ot"  life  God  hath  said  that  we 
may  not  eat  of  it — and  in  tiie  day  we  eat  we  shall 
surely  die."  How  did  she  know  this?  eiie  was  the 
weaker  vessel,  and  was  therefore  the  object  of  at- 
tack, but  I  suppose  her  husband  had  instructed  her, 
at  ail  events  iiere  is  evidence  that  she  possessed  the 
knowledge  of  her  relations.  The  shame,  the  sorrow, 
the  silence,  the  dread  of  God  wliich  followed  tho 
transi^ressions,  all  shew  that  they  understood  it  well. 
Their  knowledge  of  it  was  necessary  to  the  very 
existence  of  a  covenant. 

But  in  the  delence  it  will  be  said  that  the  book  only 
denies  that  tiiis  covenant  is  mentioned  in  this  passage 
of  the  Romans  :  and  that  Mr.  Barnes  denies^  such  a 
covenant  is  the  mere  assertion  of  his  accuser.  I  think 
he  does  deny  it  in  tola.  But,  aside  from  that,  1  hold 
that  every  man  is  bound  by  the  legitiniate  conse- 
quences of  the  positions  he  may  take.  Thedeclara» 
lion  of  the  Assembly  is  pleaded  in  opposition  to  this : 
but  I  do  not  adaiit  it  be  binding.  It  is  for  the  House 
to  judge  what  is  the   meaning  of  Mr.  Barnes'  lan- 

ffua.5e.  1  hold  myself  fully  responsible  for  ali  the 
egitiniate  results  of  my  own  agency  in  thought 
word  or  deed.  I  mean  to  God;  and  in  re/ard  to 
my  language,  I  am  also  accountable  to  men.  If  I 
use  a  phrase  which  is  calculated  to  injure  your  re- 

Eutation  1  cannot  screen  myself  iVom  res|ior;sibility 
y  pleading  that  I  did  not  mean  the  words  in  an 
injurioas  sense 7  Who  is  to  judge  with  what  in- 
tention the  words  produced  were  employed?  The 
court  is  to  judge.  It  is  a  fact  (or  the  jury.  The 
question  to  be  settled  is,  does  the  languvge  quoted 
mean  what  is  charged?  Another  remark.  It  ia 
charged  on  President  Edwards,  and  on  those  of  ua 
who  are  called  the  Orthodox,  that_  we  hold  per- 
sonal identity  between  Adam  and  his  posterity.  I 
deny  the  asoertion.  Edwards  has  no  such  doctrine. 
Let  us  here  what  it  is  he  does  say : 

My  meaning  in  the  who'e  of  what  has  been  hero  said,  may 
be  illustrated  thus:  Lei  us  suppose  that  Adam  a>id  all  his 
posteriiy  had  co-existed,  and  that  bis  positnty  had  been, 
through  a  law  cf  nature  established  by  the  Creator,  united  to 
him,  something  as  the  branches  of  a  tree  are  uarsd  to  iha 
root,  or  the  members  of  the  body  to  the  head,  so  as  to  eoa- 


136  TaiAL  of 

■  titutc  as  it  were  on;  complex  pers3n,  or  one  moral  w!iob  i 
So  thai  by  ilie  faw  of  uiii  >n  there  s-liouUi  have  been  a  com- 
munion and  co-existence  in  acta  and  alTcctions;  all  jointly 
participating,  and  all  concurring,  as  one  whole,  in  the  dispo- 
sition of  the  liead :  as  we  see  in  the  body  natural,  the  whole 
body  is  alleclcd  as  the  head  is  alFectcd  ;  and  the  whole  body 
concurs  when  the  head  acts.  Now  in  this  case  all  tho 
branches  ot"  mankind, by  the  consiitulion  of  nature  and  law  of 
union,  would  have  been  affected  just  as  Adam,  their  common 
root,  was  ali'ected.  When  the  Heart  of  the  root,  by  a  full 
disposition,  committed  the  first  sin,  the  hearts  of  all  the 
branches  would  have  concurred  ;  and  when  the  root,  in  con- 
sequence of  tins,  became  guilty,  so  would  all  the  branches; 
and  when  the  root,  as  a  punishment  of  the  sin  conmiitted, 
was  forsaken  of  God,  in  like  manner  would  it  have  fared  with 
all  the  branches  ;  and  when  the  root,  in  consequence  of  this, 
was  confirmed  in  permanent  depravity,  the  case  would  have 
been  the  same  witii  all  the  branches;  and  as  new  guilt  on 
the  soul  of  Adam  would  have  been  consequent  ca  this,  so 
also  would  ii  have  been  with  hi.^  moral  branches.  And  thus 
(ill  tilings,  with  relation  lo  evil  disposition,  guilt,  pollution 
and  depravity,  would  exist,  in  the  same  order  and  depeadenco, 
in  eacli  branch,  as  in  the  root.  Now,  difference  of  the  time 
of  existence  does  not  at  all  hinder  things  succeeding  in  the 
same  order,  any  more  than  d.rterence  of  place  in  a  co^exist- 
ence  of  time. 

Here  may  be  obsorved,  as  in  several  respects  to  the  present 
purpose,  some  things  that  are  said  by  Siapferus,  an  eminent 
divine  oi  Zurich,  in  Switzerland,  in  his  Theologia  Polemica, 
pu'jlished  about  fourteen  years  ago;— in  English  as  follows: 
"Seeing  all  Adam's  posterity  are  derived  from  tlieir  first 
parent,  as  their  root,  the  whole  of  the  human  kind,  wi'h  its 
root,  may  be  considered  as  constituting  but  one  whole,  or 
one  mass;  so  as  not  to  be  properly  distinct  from  its  root;  tho 
posterity  not  differing  from  it,  iiny  otherwise  than  the  branch- 
es from  the  tree.  From  wh-ch  it  easily  appears,  how  that 
when  the  root  sinned,  all  that  which  is  derived  from  it,  and 
with  it  constitutes  but  one  whole,  may  be  looked  upon  as 
also  sinning;  seeing  it  is  not  distinct  from  the  root,  but  one 
with  it." — Tom.  i.  Cap.  3.  §  856.  57. 

"  It  is  objected  against  the  imputation  of  A'iam's  sin,  that 
we  never  committed  the  same  sin  with  Adam,  neither  in 
number  nor  in  kind.  I  answer,  we  should  disiinguisli  here 
betvjeen  the  physical  act  itself  which  Adam  committed,  and 
the  morali'y  of  the  action  and  consetit  to  it.  If  we  have  re- 
spect only  to  the  external  act,  to  be  sure  it  must  be  confessed 
that  Adam's  posterity  did  not  put  forth  their  hands  to  the 
forbidden  fruit :  In  which  sense,  that  act  of  transgression 
and  that  fall  of  Adam  cannot  be  phyoically  one  with  the  sin 
of  his  posterity.  But  if  we  consider  the  morality  of  the  ac- 
tion, and  what  consent  there  is  to  it,  it  is  altogether  to  be 
maintained,  that  hii  posterity  committed  the  same  f-in,  both 
in  number  and  in  kind,  inasmuch  as  they  are  to  be  looked 
upon  as  consenting  to  it.  For  where  there  is  consent  to  a 
sin,  there  the  same  sin  is  committed.  Seeing  therefore  that 
Adam  with  all  his  posterity  constitute  but  one  moral  person, 
and  arc  united  in  the  same  covenant,  and  arc  transgressora 


MR.   BXHNES.  I3Y 

dfthe  same  law,  they  are  also  to  be|  looked  upon  as  having, 
in  a  moral  cstimaiion,  coinmitted  tlie  same  tratisgri'ssion  of 
the  law,  bolh  in  number  and  ia  k  nd.  Tiicrefore  ihi)  reason- 
ing avails  nothinn;  against  tlie  righluou''  impulalion  of  llie  sm 
of  Adam  to  all  mankind,  or  to  ihe  whole  moral  person  that 
is  consentinc;  to  it.  And  for  tlie  reason  nicnlioncd,  we  may 
rather  argue  thus.  The  sin  of  the  posleriiy,  on  account  of 
their  conseat,  and  tlie  moral  view  m  which  they  are  to  be 
taken,  is  l!.e  same  v,  th  ibn  sin  of  Adam,  not  only  in  kind, 
but  in  number;  therefore  the  sin  of  Adam  n  rirhiiy  imputed 
to  his  posterity.'' — Id.  Tom.  i\,  cap.  16  §  GO,  Gl. 

He  say!=,  they  constituted  but  one  moral  person:  yet 
this  b'^ok  cliargcs  hiin  with  rnairituininj?  ihut  there 
was  a  physical  uni(y  of  person.  Stapler  says  the 
union  is  moral — a  covenant  or  constituted  union,  and 
then  qnoies  the  subjcrt  G."  identity.  lamnotsinpu- 
Jnr  in  '.xliinjr  tnis  position  in  delLnct;  ofEdvvard.s.  Dr. 
Janeway,  Wiiting  in  ihe  Christian  Ailvocate,  main- 
tains the  same.  He  there  asserts  that  Edwards 
never  ta  i^ht  the  doctrine  of  pergonal  identity.  The 
thing  is  i;t  an  e\  il  savor.  What  Edwards  does  teach 
is  not  a  persona!,  but  a  covenani  union,  a  uniiy  for 
moral  uii posts.  Am  menibers  o(  this  great  moral 
body  v^e  are  all  one  in  our  ccvenant  head.  There 
war  no  personal  identity  betv,  een  Adam  and  his  wife. 
The  thins  is  absurd  in  itself— it  is  an  ineffable  ab- 
sm*d:ty :  and  I  rejeti:  the  im'Hitaiion  ol'ii  to  me  with 
some  indif^pation.  Ii,  is  like  tiie  cry  of  mad  dog. 
They  first  (  inrgc;  thi?  absurd  notion  upon  Edwards, 
and  then  make"  this  the  ground  of  rejecting  other 
doctrines  by  association. 

When  this  cafe  was  before  the  Presbytery,  I  quot- 
ed Turretin,  Oiven,  and  others  :  but  to  save  the 
time  of  the  Synod,  i  shall  net  cite  those  quotations 
here.  J  wdl  now  show,  liowever,  that  Pelagius,  the 
arch-heretic  of  another  age,  field  the  same  view  with 
Mr.  Burnc-;.  And  sure  I  am  that  if  my  brother  saw 
tlaat  he  wa/!  on  die  self-same  eronnd  with  such  a 
mnn,  he  wf  iikl  p.tuse.  I  quote  the  Biblical  Reperto- 
ry, biH  net  as  en  authority  in  our  ciiurch, 

Pelagirs,  in  iiis  hook  De  natura,  as  quoted  by  Augustine, 
sayf- :  "  When  i'  is  decbrcd  that  all  have  sinned  in  Adam,  it 
should  not  be  understood  of  any  original  sin  contracted  by 
tl.eii  bir;'i,  bu:  of  imitation."  Vgair  .  "Haw  can  a  man  be 
considered  guil  y  I^y  G.>d  of  tha;  sin  which  he  knows  not  to 
be  his  own  'l  for  ii  it  i?  necessary,  it  is  not  his  own ;  but  if  it 
is  his  own,  it  is  voluntary  ;  and  i:  volunnry,  it  can  be  avoid- 
ed." 

It  is  the  very  doctrine  of  Pelagius.  Yet  I  am  far 
from  charging  broii;er  Barnes  with  being  a  Pelagian, 
He  holds  a  portion  of  ids  doctrine,  undoubtedly:  and 
if  he  iollow'e  oui.  that  portion,  !i^  must  embrace  the 
rest.  It  he  proceeds  as  he  has  begun,  I  warn  him, 
now,  in  time,  that  he  will  end  with  being  a  Pelagian, 

1^ 


138  TRIAL    OF 

There  did  exist  a  covenant  with  Adam  as  the  federal 
head  of  the  race.    But  we  are  preseed  with  the  diffi- 
culty, '  How  can  it  be?'  My   reply  is,  I  don't  know. 
How  can  the   Trinity  be?  How  can   iliree  be   one? 
There  are  ultimate  truths  in  morals  as  in  all  other 
matters  of  science.    Put  three  men  into  a  company 
in  bus^iness,  and  t'lcy  become  a  moral  unity.    How  is 
this?    If  anv  man  will  explain  to  mc  the  doctrine  of 
agency,  I  will  explain  lo  iiirn  the  covenant  of  works. 
But  because  it  is  an  element  in  morals,  beyond  which 
a  man  can't  go,  must  we  therelbre  reject  it?  A  man 
may  ask  me  to   ex|)lain  an  axiom  in  ireomeiry  :  and 
because  1  can't  do  it,  are  we  to  reject  the  science? 
There  are  orio^inal  elements  in  every  science.    I  af- 
firm that  the  principle  of  representation  is  an  origirial 
element  in  morals— vet  wc  cannot  exist  in  a  social 
«tate  without  it.     It  is  indispensable  to  human  socie- 
ty.    Tliat  one  man  shall  stand  in  the  moral  relalions 
of  another,  is  a  fact  without  wliich  society  could  not 
exist  lor  a  day :  and  I  never  will  consent  to  cast  it 
off,because  it  cannot  be  explained.  Now  if  men  were 
all  represented  in  Adam,   and  a  covenant  \yith  him 
did  exist,  it  Ibllows  that  all   the  members  ol'  the  hu- 
man family  are  identilied  with  their  head,  and  follow 
his  destiny.     And  that  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
and  of  tlie  Confession  of  Faith.    It  is  here  necessary 
to  define  one  or  two  terms.  In  the  court  below, Web- 
ster was  quoted  and  certain  law  authorities  :  but  such 
authority  has  not  much  weight  with  me  in  these  mat- 
ters. 
Let  us  hear  the  Confession : 

Confession,  chap.  vi.  3.  They  being  the  root  of  all  man- 
kind, the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death 
in  sin,  and  corrupied  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity, 
descending  from  them  by  ordmary  generauon. 

4.  From  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly 
indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  lo  all  good,  and 
wholly  incUned  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  transgres- 
flions. 

5.  This  corruption  of  nature,  during  this  life  doth  remain  in 
those  that  are  regenerated  :  and  alihuugh  it  be  through  Christ 
pardoned  and  mortified,  yet  both  itself  and  all  the  motions 
thereof,  are  tiuly  and  properly  sin. 

6.  Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression 
of  the  righteous  law  ot  God,  and  contrary  thereunto,  doth, 
in  its  own  nature,  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  ia 
bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  curss  of  the  law,  and 
so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiritual,  tempo- 
ral, and  eternal. 

What  is  here  meant  by  "  ffuilt?"  moral  turpitude? 
corruption  of  heart?  I  ask  any  legal  gentleman  here 
pre&ent  to  say  whether  that  is  the  meaning?  Guilt 
18  that  whereby  an  offender  is  bound  over  to  wrath. 


Mil.    BARNES.  139 

Here  is  a  constitutional  definition  of  ihe  term.  Guilt 
is  liability  to  punishment.  This  is  a  true  and  a  sound 
definition.  Now  keeping  this  definition  in  mind,  let 
us  conjpare  the  larger  catechism,  question  27,  with 
what  is  here  atTirmed. 

Larg.  Cat.,  27.  Tiie  fall  brought  upon  mankind  th*:  loss 
of  communion  wiih  God,  ins  displeasure  and  curse  ;  so  as  wo 
are  by  nature  cliildren  of  wrath,  bond  slaves  to  Satan,  and 
justly  liable  to  all  punishnicnis  in  this  world,  and  that  which 
is  to  come. 

"Justly  lial)lc  to  all  punishmcnis,"  &c.  He  ia 
guilty  who  is  liable  to  jiunishment.  A  man  charged 
with  crime  is  by  all  courts  oi"  justice  treated  as  iimo- 
cent  until  the  verdict  of  guilty  is  actually  given  in. 
But  when  the  court  has  decided  that  he  has  done  the 
deed  which  exposes  him  to  punishment,  from  that 
moment  he  is  guilty  in  tlie  eye  of  the  law.  Judgment 
compares  Iv/o  things  and  sees  if  they  agree  or  not. 
The  jud^e  first  lavs  down  the  law  and  then  the  con- 
duct of  tlie  accused,  and  decides  whether  they  agree 
or  diH'er.  1(  they  agree,  he  pronounces  a  sentence  of 
justification:  if  they  dilfer,  a  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion. But,  before  this  award,  the  man  is  not  to  be 
t-ent  to  the  pt-nitenliary  or  to  the  gallows.  He  is  not 
guilty.  Guilt  results  from  a  i.udicial  sentence.  Men 
are  liable  before  God  for  crimes  they  have  done, 
whether  condemned  by  men  or  not :  but  they  are  lia- 
ble before  man  only  when  they  have  been  sentenced. 
There  is  an  attempt  to  evade  this  doctrine  by  a  criti- 
cism on  the  term  "  punishment."  Punishment  means 
any  sullering  inflicted  as  a  just  consequence  of  trans- 
gression. It  will  be  attempted  to  be  shown  that 
punishment  applies  only  lo  individual  and  personal 
transgression.  We  say  that  punishment  is  any  suf- 
fering which  the  law  declares  ought  to  be  endjred  as 
the  h^gil  remuneration  foi;  sin:  but  it  is  affirmed  on 
the  other  side,  that  an  evil  inflicted  is  denominated 
punishment,  only  when  it  is  for  the  personal  acts  of 
the  individual  himself  who  endures  it.  Under  this 
nice  distinction  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  evade  the 
charge.  It  is  for  the  court  to  say  whetlier  they  only 
are  bound  over  to  punishment  who  are  personally 
ffuilty.  The  confession  of  faith  says  we  areliable  for 
all  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  and  must  endure  ita 
penalty,  and  penalty  is  the  just  retribution  of  the  law 
for  the  vi'ilation  ol'  the  law. 

I  must  here  remark  on  the  doctrine  of  Imputation. 
Mr.  Barnes's  book  says  that  it  means  the  charging 
upon  a  man  his  own  personal  acts  alone,  or  the  act 
of  another  for  which  he  is  justly  responsible.  The 
Scripture  does  use  the  term  m  reference  to  the 
charging  upon  a  man  his  own  sins.  But  that  is  not 
all.    Thie  subject  is  clearly  illustrated  in  the  BibliciU 


140  TRIAL  or 

Repertory.  It  does,  undoubtedly,  include  ihe 
charging  on  an  individual  his  own  doings  ;  but  it  in- 
cludes also  the  charging  on  him  the  acts  of  another 
wiio  vvas  his  representative.  Tiiis  is  clearly  exem- 
plified in  the  case  ofPiiilemon.  Paul  says  to  him,  if 
Onesimus  has  wronj?ed  ihee  or  owes  thee  aught,  put 
that  on  my  account.  It  was  to  bo  charged  on  Paul, 
though  it  was  not  Paul's  own  act.  The  allegation  is 
that  God  impules  tilings  as  they  are,  not  as  ikey  are 
not.  But  the  direct  languajre  of  the  Scripture  de- 
clares the  contrary.  It  considers  the  first  i'ruits  as 
though  they   were  the    harvest — yet  a  handlul  of 

f  rain  is  not  the  harvest;  it  represents  the  harvest, 
n  the  passage  to  Philemon,  the  word  rendered  "  set 
to  my  account,"  is  the  same  word  in  the  Greek,  as 
that  which  is  rendered  "  inipule."  Tiie  meaning  is 
exceedingly  plain,  and  is  in  positive  contradiction  to 
Mr.  Barnes's  position.  Pliilemon  has  a  debt  in  hia 
leger  against  Onosimus:  Paul  did  not  owe  that  debt 
personally — yet  he  says,  "  impute"'  it  to  me.  I  will 
pay  it.  All  men  know  that  mutual  consent,  does  cre- 
ate a  moral  union,  and  tiiey  act  on  the  principle  ev- 
ery day.  Paul  here  did  consent,  and  I  presume  that 
he  paid  the  debt.  There  is  no  clifTiculty  in  the  mat- 
ter ;  only  keep  metaphysii-s  oil".  Adam  represented 
his  race  in  the  covenant  ol'  works,  just  as  Paul  re- 
presented Onesimus  in  the  transaction  with  Phile- 
mon, The  only  question  is  as  to  tiae  fact  of  the 
union,,  how  he  became  their  representative.  In 
Paul's  case,  it  vvas  by  Paul's  voluntary  consent;  in 
the  case  of  Adam,  it  was  by  God's  constitiuion. 
Then  comes  the  question,  did  God  constitute  such  a 
union.  II  he  did,  tlien  all  ihe  consequences  ol  such 
union  follow,  of  course.  And  it  is  in  consequence  ol 
such  union,  that  his  whole  puiiterily  fell  in  him  and 
with  liiiu.  Bat  it  is  said  in  this  book,  that  we  must 
not  ask  how  Adam's  posterity  come  to  be  atl'ected  by 
his  fall.  The  fact  is  so,  but  there  we  must  stop  and 
inquire  no  fartber.  I  am  not  willing  that  the  book 
shall  escape  on  this  ground.  A  Socinian  may  escape 
on  the  siune  princij^le.  I  can  find  men  who  are  lar 
more /i6era/ than  Mr.  Barnes,  who  will  admit  the 
same  tiling.  Indeed,  wbo  is  there  tl'.at  denies  it? 
who  denies  the  lac!  tbat  mankind  aresinl'ul  and  liable 
to  death?  All  admit  this;  the  most  wicked  men  in 
the  world  will  go  thus  ("ar.  It  does  not  follow  that 
Ave  became  sinners  by  Adam's  fall,  merely  because 
all  men  have  sinned  and  do  die  :  it  is  only  in  conse- 
quence of  a  covenant  with  Adam,  of  v.'hich  covenant 
death  was  to  be  the  penalty.  This  book  declares 
that  Adam's  sin  is  never  charged  upon  any  man  un--. 
til  he  has  sinned  himself  and  thus  assented  to  the 
relationsbip  between  him  and  tlie  father  of  the  race: 
but  tlie  doctrine  of-  the  Bible  is,  that  men  are  dcac} 


MR.   BARNES.  141 

"  by  nature" — that  "  by  the  oflence  of  one  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  to  condenination."  But  euch  w 
uot  the  lan;?uage  ofthis  book. 

P.  127.     But  as  none  are  constituted  righteous  who  do  notX 
Tolunlarily  avail  themselves  of  the  provisions  of  mercy,  so  i?  .' 
follows  that  those  who  are  condemned,  are  not  condemned 
for  the  sill  of  another  without  their  own  concurrence,  nor  un- 
less thev  personally  deserve  it. 

P.  128.  How  can  it  be  right  to  charge  ihesinsof  theguihy 
on  those  who  had  no  partieipalion  in  them'.'  How  could 
millions  be  responsible  for  ihe  sins  of  one  who  acted  long  be- 
fore Uioy  had  an  existence,  and  of  whose  act  they  had  no 
consciousness,  and  in  which  they  had  no  participation? 

Men,  ii  seems,  are  not  children  oC  wrath  by  nature, 
and  condemned  by  the  oflence  ofone,  but  when  they 
arrive  at  consciousness  and  voluntary  action,  and 
begin  to  sin  in  their  own  persons,  then  jud<^"nient 
comes  upon  ihcm.  It  is  clear  that  the  author  denies 
that  inlanis  are  justly  liable  to  death,  until  by  theif 
own  voluntary  action  ihey  have  sealed  the  covenant 
ori  their  ovvit  Dehalf.  This,  I  re|  eai,  is  not  the  doc- 
trine ol  our  confession,  nor  of  the  Bible.  Paul  teach- 
es that  by  one  man's  di.-obcdience  many  were  mad© 
einners — ''as  by  the  otiience  oi'  one  judgment  came 
upon  all  men  to  coiidemnaLion,  even  so  by  the  ri.?;hi- 
cousness  ol'  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  nieii  to 
justification."  The  exposition  teaches  that  as  con- 
demnation w^ould  come  upon  all  men  by  Adam's  sin, 
on  certain  conditions,  so  a  door  was  o|iened  for  the 
free  gift  to  come  upon  all  men  on  certain  conditions. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is,  that  judgment  came 
upon  all  men  by  Adam's  sin:  the  doctrine  of  the  ex- 
positor is,  that  condemnation  would  come  on  all  men 
when  they  should  themselves  voluntarily  sin.  The 
Bible  says  it  came  upon  them  before  they  acted  at 
all:  the  book  denies  this.  Here  is  the  ditierence  be- 
tween them. 

And  now  I  want  to  show  what  were  the  opinions 
ofa  great  and  learned  man — one  of  the  most  pious 
men  ol  his  day — a  man  who  travelled  through  all  the 
convents  of  Europe  purposely  to  i)rotnote  the  growth 
of  religion  in  those  establishments — a  man  of  uncom- 
mon sanctity  and  of  the  mo.st  splendid  talents.  You 
will  find  my  authority  in  Milner's  Churcii  Ilistorf, 
voL  2d,  p.  370: 

"  If  Adam's  sin  hurt  those  who  are  not  guilty,  the  righte- 
ousness of  Christ  profits  those  who  believe  riot." 

Here  PeJagius  declares  that  if  Adam's  sin  hurt 
those  who  were  not  themselves  personally  guilty, 
then  the  righteousness  of  Christ  tnusi  help  those 
who  believe  not.  The  very  doctrine  of  Mr.  Barnes. 
And  I  hold  up  this  passage  from  the  famous  heresi- 
arch  as  a  beacon  ot  warning  to  our  brother.    Aod  I 


142  TRIAL   OF 

now  hold  with  him  the  same  argument  whicli  was 
held  with  Pela^ius,  and  which  pressed  so  hardly  up- 
on him.  It  is  this  :  How  dare  you  baptize  iiirant?,  if 
they  hnve  no  sin?  A  report  had  Kone  abroad,  that 
Pelagius  rejected  infant  baptism.  Peiagius  denied  it; 
but  wiien  pressed  wiih  this  arfciiment,  never  coula 
exphiin  how  or  why  lie  did  it.  Tlio  same  arjcument 
has  been  pressed  upon  all  who  hold  the  doctrine  of 
human  ability.  It  was  pressed  on  the  apiiellee,  and 
with  such  importuiiity,  that  I  was  really  almost 
ashamed  of  repealinfr  it:  yet  it  never  was  met;  and 
1  venture  to  |)rtdict  that  it  never  will  be  met. 

Il'inf  ints  are  not  liable  to  puni.-?hment,  how  can 
those  who  die  in  infancy  be  pardoned  ?  What  is  par- 
don ?  It  is  the  remission  ol  a  sentence  of  condemn- 
ation. It  is  the  taking  away  ol'  tlie  legal  consequen' 
ces  of  transgression.  BuL  how  can  those  be  pardon- 
ed who  have  no  sin?  How  can  liability  to  punishment 
be  taken  away  Iro^n  those  who  never  were  liable'^ 
A  prisoner,  accused  of  a  crime,  pleads  not  guilty. 
He  is  offered  a  pardon:  but  will  he  accept  it?  No:. 
he  scorns  it.  He  replies:  I  am  innocent;*!  need  no 
pardon,  and  will  accept  none.  An  inl'ant  never  can 
DC  pardoned  unless  he  is  guilty  ;  and  it  not  guilty  of 
Bin  in  his  own  person,  he  must  be  pardoned  tlie  guilt 
of  his  first  father.  Surely  thi'  is  very  plain.  My 
Christian  brethren,  some  of  you  are  fathers,  and  are 
able  to  appreciate  the  value  of  this  doctrine.  For 
my  own  part,  I  have  believed  it  from  my  earliest 
years.  I  do  most  fully  believe  that  infants  are  in- 
debted to  Christ  lor  pardon.  But  never  did  1  feel  the 
worth  of  this  truth,  as  I  felt  it,  when  1  held  my  own 
dying  inlant  upon  my  knees,  ttnd  beheld  it  endurir^g 
agonies  equalled  only  by  those  which  the  Savior  him- 
self endured,  when  hanging  on  the  .-iccurscd  tree  he 
exclaimed — "My  Cod,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  Ibr- 
eaken  me  !"  Then  it  was  that  1  said  to  myself,  they 
may  speculate  as  they  please,  but  if  this  child  is  not 
held  liable  to  i)unishment  for  Adam's  sin,  then  what 
kind  oi  a  God  have  we  got?  Would  he  inllirt  such 
things  on  a  being  chargeable  with  no  fault?  Pa- 
rents, is  it  not  a  sladdening  thought,  that  you  shall 
meet  your  lost  p.hild  in  the  world  of  spirits  ?  that  your 
eyes  shall  behold  its  beloved  face  again  m  the  realms 
on  high  ?  Oh,  how  grand  a  thought !  how  condoling ! 
how  precious!  Bat  this  hook  says,  nay:  according 
to  this  author,  there  must  be  one  heaven  for  infants, 
and  another  for  parents.  Your  lost  babe  can  never 
take  its  harp  of  gold  and  sing  the  praises  of  redeem- 
ing love.  VVliy?  Because  it  never  was  pardoned. 
What  does  it  owe  to  Christ  or  his  blood  ?  Ah  no; 
it  never  can  join  that  melody  which  rivets  the  atten- 
tion of  angels,  but  in  which  they  have  no  share.  It 
never  can  say,  "  thou  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by 


MR.   BARNES.  14 

thy  blood,"  for  it  never  was  redeemed:  it  cannot 
praise  the  Lamb  lor  pardoning  mercy,  lor  it  never 
was  pardoned.  You  whoiiave  lost  infants,  can  appre- 
ciate this.  lithe  position  is  true, we  and  our  inlants 
must  part.  I  j)ressed  this  on  Mr.  Barnes  helorc  the 
Presbytery,  and  urged  him  for  a  reply;  hut  there 
was  no  reply.  All  thai  was  attemi>led,  was  a  cold 
remark,  ihat  vvc  knew  iitlle  about  the  state  ofin- 
fants,  and  he  was  not  vviNiii^  to  harrow  up  ttie  leei- 
ings  of  parents  by  discussnig  it.  I  jiredicl  that  there 
will  be  no  reply. 

Here  the  Synod  took  a  recess. 

On  convening  after  r.!(;e.s.s.  Synod  attended  to 
to  same  other  business,  and  then  resumed  the  trial 
of  the.  appeal,  and  Dr.  Junkiii  proceeded: 

Having  been  urged  by  not  a  lew  of  my  friends  to 
abbrevia.ie  my  remarks  still  more  than  1  have  alrea- 
dy en-leavored  to  do,  I  shall  waive  the  reading  again 
oi' the  whole  of  the  testimony,  and  shall  only  refer 
with  much  brevity  to  some  parts  ofii;  as  1  pascj  on. 

Charge  VIII. 

The  8th  charge  is  as  follows : 

Mr.  I5arnes  denies  "  that  Christ  sutTercd  the  proper  penalty 
of  the  law,  as  the  vicarior.s  substitute  of  his  people,  and  thus 
took  away  legally  their  sins  and  purchase  J  pardon." 

We  have  seen  that  the  author  of  the  Notes  on  Ro- 
mans denies  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  pos- 
terity. But  by  contrasting  tiie  two  covenants  of 
grace  and  of  works,  we  ascertain  the  fact,  and  are 
shut  up  to  believe  it,  that  as  Adam's  sin  was  imputed 
to  his  posterity,  so,  in  like  manner,  the  pin:«  of  Christ's 
people  passed  over  to  Christ  and  were  the  cause  of 
his  anguish  and  death  on  the  cross.  Jesus  is  called 
in  the  Bible  the  second  Adam.  With  him  was  made 
a  new  covenant,  llie  first  liaving  been  broken  ;  new, 
in  respect  to  the  lime  of  its  revelation,  but  old  in 
fact ;  for  in  reference  to  this  covenant,  believers  were 
chosen  in  Christ  before  the  Ibunciation  of  tiie  world, 
and  the  same  relation  was  constituted  between  them 
and  Christ,  the  head  of  the  new  covenant,  as  had  be- 
fore been  established  between  Adam,  the  head  of  the 
first  covenant,  and  his  positerity.  Consequently, 
their  sin  pa.9ses  over  to  the  second  Adam  in  just  the 
same  Avay  as  the  sin  of  the  first  Adam  passed  over 
upon  his  seed. 

The  doctrine  of  this  book  is  a  denial  that  Christ 
suffered  the  proper  penalty  of  the  law  ;  and  the  rea- 
Bon  given  is,  that  his  sufferings  were  not  eternal, 
nof  were  they  mingled  with  remorse  and  despair. 
The  Bible  clearly  shows,  however,  that  his  death 
was  penal  in  its  nature — that  he  bore  the  wrath  of 
God  for  sin.  There  is  much  in  this  book  which  in- 
cludes what  I  deem  correct  phraseology.    It  admits 


144 


TRIAL   OF 


(liat  Christ  was  "substituted"  for  his  people,  bat  it 
denies  that  he  was  their  lepal  representative.  It 
admits  tiiat  Christ  did  t;o  suli'er  as  to  show  to  the 
universe  God's  nispieapure  at  sin;  but  not  that  he 
endured  its  lej^ai  penahy.  But  you  could  never  un- 
derstand how  hi.s  death  should  display  the  divine  jus- 
tice, unless  he  took  the  lei^al  responsibilities  oC his 
people.  TJie  book  says  that  it  showed  that  God's 
law  could  not  be  broken  with  impunity :  but  it  doea 
not  show  how  this  was  done:  tbr  imputation  is  deni- 
ed. But  surely  liis  deatli  was  one  ol' the  stiongest 
manifestatinns  ol"  injustice  that  ever  was  made,  un- 
less imputation  be  admiiled.  If  no  sin  was  imputed 
to  Christ,  for  what  did  he  sutler?  VV^iy  was  that 
cup  of  trembling  put  to  his  blessed  lips  ufitil  he  had 
drained  its  bittere.-^t  drej^s  ?  The  following  are  nijr 
proofs  of  the  ei^bih  charge: 

Proof  1.  All  ihe  pa99.i£;cs  quoted  under  charges  6  and  7 
are  refern-d  to  here.  If  tlie  sin  of  the  first  Adam  is  not  im- 
puted to  his  seed,  and  they  are  not  liable  to  jiuiiisliment  on 
acconni  of  it ;  then  ii  inevitably  follows,  that  the  sin  of  hia 
«eed  is  not  iyiputed  to  the  second  Adam,  and  he  panislied  on 
account  o'it. 

Proof  2.  p.  S9,  93.  "In  the  plan  ef  salvation,  therefore,  he 
has  showa  a  regard  to  the  law,  by  appointing  hia  Son  to  b« 
a  substitute  in  the  I'ljce  of  sinners  ;  not  to  endure  its  precipe 
Iienaliy,  for  his  suflVriiiva  were  not  eternal,  ner  v.-ere  iliey  at- 
tended with  remorse  of  conscience,  or  by  despair,  which  are 
the  proper  ■penalty  of  the  law  ;  but  he  endured  so  mueh  as  to 
nccomplisli  the  same  cndb  as  if  those  who  sha.l  be  saved  bf 
him,  had  lee.i  doomed  to  eternal  death.  That  is,  he  showed 
that  the  law  could  not  be  violated  without  introducing  suffer- 
fngs;  and  that  it  could  not  be  broken  with  impunity.  He 
showed  that  he  had  s.)  great  a  regard  for  it,  thai  he  would  not 
pardon  ont  sinner  witiiout  an  atonement.  And  thus  he  secur- 
ed the  propel  honor  to  his  cliaracter  as  a  lover  of  his  law.  a 
hater  of  sin,  and  a  just  God.  He  has  shown  tiivl  if  sinners 
do  not  avail  themselves  ol  the  cfl'er  of  pardon  by  Jesus  Christ, 
Viey  must  experience  in  iheir  own  souls  forever,  the  pains 
which  this  substitute  for  sinners  endured,  in  behalf  of  men,  on 
the  crocs."  Thu?,  no  principle  of  justice  has  been  abandon- 
ti\ ;  no  claim  of  his  law  has  been  let  down  ;  uo  disposition  ha» 
been  evinced  to  do  injustice  to  the  universe,  by  suti'.ring  the 
gadty  to  escape.  He  is,  in  all  this  great  transaction,  a  just 
moral  govi  rnor,  as  just  to  his  law,  to  himself,  to  his  Son,  to 
the  uni\crsc.  when  i\G  pardonSy  as  he  is  wisen  he  sends  the 
incorriiiible  'sinner  down  m  iiell.  A  Aill  compensation,  an 
equivalent  has  beei.  providtd  by  die  sufferings  of  the  Savior 
in  the  sinner's  siead,  and  the  tinner  may  be  pardoned." 

How  opposite  this  is  to  the  doctrine  of  our  church, 
will  be  seen  by  referring  to  the  Confession  ol  Faith 
and  to   the  Catechisms. 

Confession,  chap.  viii.  4.  This  office  the  Lord  Jesus  did 
most  willingly  undertake;  which  that  he  might  discharge^ 
he  was  made  under  the  law,  and  did  perfectly  fulhl  it;  en- 
dured most  grievous  torments,  immediately  in  his  soul,  and 


MK.   BARNES.  145 

most  painful  Bufferings  in  his  body ;  was  crucified  and  died  ; 
was  buried  and  remained  under  llie  power  of  death,  yet  saw 
no  corruption.  On  the  third  day  he  arose  from  the  dead, 
with  the  same  body  in  which  he  sufTcred  ;  witii  which  also 
he  ascended  into  heaven,  and  there  sitfcth  at  the  right  hand 
of  his  Father,  making  intercession  ;  and  shall  return  to  judge 
men  and  nngels  nt  the  end  of  the  world. 

5.  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice 
of  himself,  which  he  throuijli  the  eternal  Spirit  once  offered 
up  unto  God,  hath  fidly  satisfied  the  justice  of  his  Father; 
and  purchased  not  only  reconciliation,  but  an  everlasting  in- 
heritance in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  for  all  those  wlium  the 
Father  hath  given  unto  him. 

Chap.  xi.  3.  Christ,  by  his  obedience  and  death,  did  fully 
discharge  the  debt  of  all  those  that  arc  thus  justified,  and  did 
make  a  proper,  real  and  full  satisfaction  to  his  Father's  jus- 
ticp  in  their  bclialf.  Yet  in  as  much  as  he  was  given  by  the 
Father  for  them,  and  his  obedience  and  satisfaction  accepted 
in  their  stead,  and  both  freely,  not  for  any  thing  in  them, 
thtir  justification  is  only  of  free  grace;  that  both  the  e.xact 
justice  and  rich  grace  of  God  might  be  glorified  in  the  justifi- 
cation of  sinners. 

Larger  Catechism,  49.  Christ  humbled  himself  in  his 
death,  in  that  having  been  betrayed  by  Judas,  forsaken  by 
his  di.'^cipies,  scorned  and  rejected  by  the  world,  condemned 
by  Pilate  and  tormented  by  his  persecutors  ;  having  aleo  con- 
llicted  with  the  terrors  of  death,  and  the  powers  ot  darkness, 
felt  and  borne  the  weight  of  God's  wrath,  he  laid  down  his 
life  an  ofleiing  for  sin,  enduring  the  painful,  shameful,  and 
cursed  death  of  the  cross. 

Shorter  Caiechism,  25.  Christ  e.xecuteth  the  office  of  a 
priest,  in  his  once  offering  up  of  himself  a  sacrifice  to  satisfy 
divine  justice,  and  reconcile  us  to  God  ;  and  in  making  con- 
tinual intercession  for  us. 

These  aulhoritics  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
Presbyterian  ciiurch  hold.s  the  doctrine  that  our  shis 
passed  over  on  Christ,  and  that  he  nas  hcid  respon- 
Bible  for  them,  because  he  was  the  surety,  represent- 
ative and  moral  head  of  his  peo|)le. 
Charge  IX. 

The  9th  charge  is  the  luliovving: 

Mr.  Barnes  denies  "  that  the  righteousness,  i.e.  the  act- 
ive obedience  of  Christ  to  the  law,  is  imputed  to  his  people  for 
their  justification  ;  so  that  they  are  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the 
law,  and  therefore  justified." 

My  proofs  are  as  follows: 

Proof  1.  p.  28.  (3.)  The  phrase  righteousness  of  God,  is 
equivalent  lo  God's  plan  ofjusiifyivg  men  ;  his  scheme  of  de- 
claring ihemjust  in  Ike  sight  of  Ike  law;  or  of  acquitting 
them  from  punishment,  and  admitting  them  to  favor.  In 
this  sense  it  stands  opposid  to  man's  plan  of  justification  i.  e. 
by  his  own  works.  God's  plan  is  by  faith."  "The  word  to 
justifijy  dikaio,  means  properly  to  be  Just,  to  be  innocent,  to  ba 
righteous.    It  then  means  lo  declare,  or  treat  as  righteous,  as  i/J 

when  a  man  is  charged  with  an  offence,  and  is  acquited.    If         /  J 
the  crime  alleged  is  not  proved  against  him,  he  is  declared  by 


146  TRIAL  OF 

the  law  to  be  innocent.  It  then  means  to  treat  as  if  innocent, 
to  regard  as  innocent ;  that  is,  to  pardon,  to  forgive,  ana 
consequently  to  treat  as  ii'  the  ollence  had  not  occured.  It 
does  not  mean  that  the  man  did  not  commit  the  otlence,  or 
that  the  law  mij^'ht  not  liavc  held  him  answerable  for  it;  but 
that  the  ofl'ence  is  forgiven  j  and  it  is  consistent  to  receive  the 
offender  into  favor,  and  to  treat  him  as  i/he  had  not  commit- 
ted it." 
yu  ^-J  "  In  regard  to  this  plan,  it  may  be  observed.     (1.)    That  ia 

((t  not  to  declare  that  men  are  innocent  and  pure.  That  would 
not  be  true.  The  truth  is  just  the  reverse  :  aud  God  docs  not 
esteem  men  to  be  different  from  what  they  are.  (2.)  It  is  not 
to  take  part  with  the  sinner,  and  to  miiigate  his  olloriccs.  It 
admits  them  to  their  full  extent,  and  makes  him  foci  them 
also.  (3.)  It  is  not  that  we  become  partakers  of  tlie  essentia! 
righteousness  of  God.  'I'hat  is  impossible.  (4  )  It  is  not 
that  his  righteousness  becomes  ours.  This  is  not  tiue  ;  and 
there  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  which  that  can  be  undersloecL 
Bul  it  is  God's  plan  (or  pardoning  sin,  and  for  treating  us  as 
if  we  had  not  commuted  it ;  that  is,  adopting  us  as  his  cliild- 
ren,  and  admitting  us  to  heaven,  on  the  ground  of  what  the 
Lord  Jesus  has  dune  in  our  stead.  This  is  God's  plan.  Men 
seek  to  save  tlitmselvei-'  by  their  own  works.  God's  plan  ia 
to  save  them  by  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Prool  2.  p.  81,  85.  "  Even  the  rigk'eousness  of  God.  The 
opostic,  having  stated  that  the  design  of  the  Gospel  was  to 
reveal  a  new  plan  of  becoming  just  in  the  sight  of  God,  pro- 
ceeds here  more  fully  to  explain  it.  The  explanation  which 
he  oflers,  makes  it  plain  that  the  phrase  so  oltcn  used  by  liim, 
^'  rl£hleousness  of  God,"  does  iiut  refer  tc)  ap  attribute  of 
God,  but  to  his  plan  of  making  m*n  rigl-iteous.  litre  he  says, 
that  it  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ;  but  surely  an  aitribute  of 
God  is  not  produced  liy  faith  ia  Jeuws  Christ.  It  means  God's 
mode  of  regarding  men  as  rightcuus  through  their  bc!ief  in 
Je.«us  Ciirist.  "  God  has  promised  that  tl.cy  who  believe  in 
Christ,  shall  bo  pardoned  and  saved.  This  is  his  plan  in 
distinction  from  the  p^an  of  ih.iss  who  seek  to  be  justilied  by 
works." 

^^  JJci7ig  jus/.ijied.— Being  treated  as  if  righteous,  that  ia, 
being  regarded  and  treated  as  if  they  hjd  kept  the  law.  Th« 
apostle  has  shown  that  they  could  not  be  so  regard. d  and 
treated  by  any  meiit  of  tluir  own,  or  by  personal  obedience 
to  the  law.  He  now  affirms  that  if  thty  were  so  treated,  it 
must  b'!  by  mere  faror,  and  as  a  matter,  not  of  light,  but  of 
gift.    This  is  the  essence  of  the  Gospel. 

Proofs,  p.  94,  95,  as  quoted  under  charge  IV  (7)  and  p.  96, 
"  God  juilges  things  as  they  are;  and  sinners  who  are  justi- 
fied, he  judges  not  as  if  they  were  pure,  or  as  if  ihey  liad  a 
chiiin  :  but  ho'  rrga.ds  tlvm  as  united  by  fuilk  to  Ike  Lord 
/'~'  Jesus,  and  in  tJiisreiation  he  judges  that  tkey  ■•■hould  he  treated 
as  fiisjriends,  though  lliey  have  be^n,  are,  and  alisai/s  uill  be 
'  personally  undeserving.     But  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures 

was  that  the  entire  rigtiteousjiess  of  Christ  was  set  over  to 
them,  was  really  and  truly  theirs,  and  was  transferred  to 
them  in  any  sense,  With  what  piopnety  could  the  apostle  say, 
that  God  justified  the  ungodly/  If  they  have  all  the  right- 
eousness ol'Chiist  as  their  own,  as  really  and  truly  theirs,  as 
)/■  they  had  wrought  it  out  themselves,  they  art  not  "  ungodly." 


MR.   BARN£S.  14? 

They  are  eminently  pure  and  holy,  nnd  have  a  claim,  not  of 

fiacc,  but  of  debt,  to  the  very  liiglicst  rewards  of  hpdven."  p. 
7.  Unto  whom  God  irnputcth  righUousntss. — Wliom  God 
treats  as  righteous,  or  as  entitled  to  his  favor  in  a  way  dif- 
ferent from  his  conformity  to  the  law.  This  is  found  in 
Psalms  xxxii.  And  the  wiujie  scope  and  design  of  ihc  Psalm 
is  to  show  the  blessedness  of  the  man  who  ]sJ'orgivir)g,  and 
whoso  sins  are  not  charged  on  him,  but  who  is  freed  from  tha 
punishment  due  to  his  sms.  Being  thus  paidoned,  he  is  treat- 
ed ns  a  righteous  man." 

Proof  4.  p.  127.  lii/lhcobcdlenceof  one— 01  CUrisl.  Thin 
stands  opposed  to  the  dinvbcdicnce  of  Adam,  and  eviJenlly 
ineludes  the  en  I  ire  worii  o:  t'le  Redeemer  whicii  has  a  bearing 
on  tlie  salvation  of  men.  Phil.  ii.  8.  "lie  ■•••  became 
obedient  unto  deaih." 

P.  21.  '"  Of  God's  righteousness.  Not  of  the  personal 
holiness  of  God,  but  of  God's  plan  of  juslijying  mi:n.  or  of 
declaring  ihem  lighteous  by  faitli  in  his  Son.  Here  God's 
plan  stands  opposed  lo  their  efForts  to  make  themselves 
righteous  by  th>  ir  own  works." 

The  book  deni  js  that  the  active  obedieiice  of  Christ 
is  inipated  to  bi-lievers  lor  their  rio'httousness.  If 
imputation  is  net  true,  and  the  doinss  ol'one  man  aa 
to  their  legal  consequences  do  not  pass  over  to  ano- 
ther, then  undoublec'jy  Christ's  active  com;)h"ance 
witli  the  detuanJs  ol' the  law  cannot  be  imputed  for 
righteousniss.  The  |)hraseis  used  of"  treating  men 
as  if  they  wera  righteous,"  but  theie  is  a  careful 
avoiding  of  the  assertion  that  the  active  obedience  of 
the  Savior  is  counted  to  them  in  kav  as,  theirs. 

In  pages  94,  95,  he  says.  [Sea  the  quotation  under  Charga 
IV.] 

The  doctrine  of  our  Confession,  and  of  the  Bible, 
is   here  expressly  denied.     That  the  believer  is  justi- 
fied by  Christ's  obedience,  that  he  has  on  the  wedding 
garment  of  Chpist's  righteousness,  is  the  doctrine  of 
our  Church  in  her  Confession:  but,  according  to  this 
book,  there  is  no  transfer  of  legal  responsibilities— 
that  goes  down  with  tlie  doctrine  of  imputation. 
I  rcler  the  Synod  to  our  Confession: 
Confession  of  Faith,  xi.  1.     Those   whom  God   effectually 
calleth  he  also  freely  jusiifieth  ;  not   by  infusing  righteous- 
ness into  them,  but  by  pardoning  their  sms,  anTT^y  account- 
ing and  accepting  their  persons  as  righteous:  not  for  any 
thmg  wrought  in  them,  or   done   by    them,  but  for  Christ'* 
Bake  alone:  not  by  imputing  fa  th  itself,  the  act  of  lelieving, 
or  any  other  evangelical  obedience,    to  them   as  their  righte- 
ousness; but  by  imputing  the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of 
Christ  unto  thei.i,  they  receiving  and  resting  on  him  and  his 
righteousness  by  faith  :  which  faith  they  have  not  of  them* 
selves  ;  it  is  the  gift  of  God. 

2.  Faith,  thus  receiving  and  resting  on  Christ  and  his 
righteousness,  is  the  alone  instrument  of  justificatijn ;  yet  ia 
it  not  alone  in  the  person  justified,  but  is  ever  accompanied 
with  all  other  saving  graces,  and  ia  no  dead  faith,  but  workelii 
by  love. 


148  TRIAL   OF 

3.  Christ,  by  his  obedience  and  death,  did  fully  discharge 
the  debt  of  all  those  that  are  thus  justified,  and  did  make  a 
proper,  real,  and  full  satisf5c;tion  to  his  Father's  justice  in 
their  behalf  Yet,  in  as  much  as  he  was  given  by  the  Father 
for  ihcm,  and  his  obedience  and  satisfaction  accepted  in  their 
stead,  and  both  freely,  not  for  any  thing  in  them,  their  justi- 
fication is  only  of  free  grace;  that  both  the  exact  justice  and 
rich  grace  of  God  might  be  glorified  in  the  justification  of 
sinners. 

Larger  Catechism,  70.  Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free 
grace  unto  sinners,  in  which  he  pardoneth  ail  their  sins,  ac- 
cepteiii  and  accounteth  their  persjns  rigiilcous  in  his  sight; 
not  for  any  thing  wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  them,  but  on- 
ly for  the  perfect  obedience  and  full  satislaction  of  Christ,  by 
God  imputed  to  them,  and  received  by  faiih  alone. 

71.  Althounli  Christ,  l<y  his  obedience  and  death,  did  make 
a  proper,  real,  and  full  si;isf.iction  to  God's  justice,  in  the  be- 
half of  them  that  are  justified ;  yet  in  as  much  as  Gid  acccpi- 
eth  the  satisfaction  from  a  surety,  which  he  niig lit  have  de- 
manded of  them,  and  did  provide  ihis  surety,  h'.s  only  Son, 
imputing  his  righlooiisness  to  tliem,  and  requiring  nothing  of 
them  for  their  justificition  but  faith,  which  also  is  his  gift, 
their  justification  is  to  them  of  free  grace. 

72.  Justifying  faith  is  a  saving  grace,  wrought  in  the  heart 
of  the  sinner  by  the  Spirit  and  word  of  God,  whereby  he,  be- 
ing convinced  of  his  sin  and  misery,  and  of  the  disability  in 
himself  and  all  other  creatu  es  to  recover  him  out  ol  his  lost 
condition,  not  only  assenteth  to  the  truth  of  the  promise  of 
the  gospel,  but  rcceiveth  and  resteth  upon  Christ  and  his 
righteousness,  therein  held  forth,  for  pardon  of  sin,  and  for 
the  acctpiing  and  accounting  of  his  person  righteousness  in 
the  sight  of  God  for  salvation. 

Shorter  Catechism,  33.  Justification  :b  an  act  of  God's 
free  grace,  wherein  he  pardoiicth  ail  our  sius,  and  accepteth 
us  as  rigliteous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  imputed  to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone. 

Justification  is  the  accounting  of  an  individual  as 
righteous  in  the  siglit  of  the  law.  It  proceeds  on  the 
great  principle  of  God's  moral  government  that 
righteous  actions  sliall  be  rewarded  and  unrighteous 
actions  punished.  Paul  treats  of  that  doct rine  in  this 
epistle:  and  it  is  the  only  part  of  the  Scripture  in 
which  the  doctrine  is  treated  of  in  form.  In  sum- 
ming up  tliQ  design  ol  the  epistle  he  declares  that  in 
the  gospel  "  the  righteousntss  of  God  ia  revealetl 
from  faith  to  faith."  This  commentator  however 
declares  that  tlie  doctrine  of  justification  is  not  here 
treated  of  at  all,  hut  cnly  the  living  ol  believers  by 
faith.  But  any  one  can  sec  that  tlie  lile  of  which 
Paul  speaks  is  that  eternal  life  which  is  the  ed'ect  of 
justification.  The  prophet  Habakkuk  speaks  of  this 
— hut  takes  up  the  converse  of  the  proposition.  There 
are  two  pans  in  the  dilemma — viz.  justification  by 
Clirisi's  works  and  justification  by  man's  own  works 
— and  he  takes  away  one  horn  of  the  dilemma  and 
thereby  leaves  the  other.    He  that  is  not  justified 


MK.    BARNES.  119 

shall  not  live — and  what  is  the  conclusion  ?  that  the 
righteousness  of  man  by  the  obedience  ot  the  law  is 
wholly  defective  and  insufficient.  This  he  proves  by 
an  induction  of  particulars,  citing  the  cases  of  men 
of  all  sons  and  over  the  whole  world.  Ilavini; 
proved  tliis  position  both  from  fact  and  from  Scrip- 
ture, he  draws  to  the  conclusion  of  his  argument  in 
the  20th  verse  of  the  3d  chapier,  "  Wherefore  by  the 
works  of  the  lavy  shall  no  flehh  be  justified."  He 
lays  that  mode  ol'just.ification  on  one  side — and  what 
next?  He  refers  lo  the  active  obedience  of  some  one 
else  which  is  to  take  the  place  of  these  human  works 
'*  but  now  the  riijhteousness  of  God  without  the  law 
is  manifest."  This  is  the  same  doctrine  he  had  in 
view  in  the  beginning  of  the  17th  verse.  The  righ- 
teousness of  God  is  an  active  obedience,  coming  ia 
the  place  of  that  which  was  demanded  of  man. 

If  it  does  not  mean  this,  then  Dr.  Priestly's  allega- 
tion "  that  the  apostles  often  reasoned  incorrectly" 
i.s  true.  The  aposllereveals  to  us  not  the  righteous- 
ness of"  man  nor  of  angels  but  of  God  our  Redeemer  : 
but  this  book  denies  that  that  righteousness  can  bo 
ours  in  any  sense  whatever.  The  apostle  proves  the 
contrary.  His  whole  reasoning  shuts  us  up  to  be- 
lieve that  he  means  iJiis — and  tliis  only.  This  is 
justificaiion  according  to  the  doctrine  of  your  church. 
It  is  the  setting  over  to  a  believer  as  soon  as  he  be- 
lieves, all  the  legal  excellence  of  his  surely,  from 
that  moment  it  is  his  :  hence  the  Lord  Jesus  is  term- 
ed '  the  Lord  our  righteousness.'  There  is  no  evi- 
dence to  shew  that  ttn;  mere  endurance  of  the  sanc- 
tion of  tlie  law  will  entitle  any  one  to  a  reward.  The 
mere  endurance  of  p  lin  is  not  that  to  which  the  posi- 
tive rewardd  of  righteous  action  are  promised  or  can 
justly  belong.  Christ's  sufferings  meet  all  the  de- 
mand of  the  law  for  punishment,  but  it  is  his  obedi- 
ence which  meets  the  demand  of  the  law  in  its  pre- 
cept. The  law  demands  of  a  sinner  both  the  en- 
durance of  penalty  and  the  obedience  of  its  precept — 
Christ  rendered  both  :  but  this  book  rejects  one  of 
them  entirely. 

The  imputation  of  Christ's  obedience  to  the  be- 
liever is  not  taught  in  that  book  ;  it  is  not  so  much  ae 
once  brought  into  view  ;  no,  not  even  that  it  may  be 
thrust  aside.  And  yet  there  are  many  places  where 
there  must  have  been  a  strong  temptation  to  advert 
to  it. 

Charge  X. 

My  tenth  charge  is  in  the  following  words  :  viz. 

"Mr.  Barnes  alss  teaches,  in  opposition  lo  the  standards, 
that  justification  is  simply  pardon." 

Proof  1  pp.  28,  29  (already  quoted).     "The  phrase  rt^-A/- 

touaness  qf  God  is  equivalent  lo   Go(Ps  plan  of  justifying 

13 


150  TRIAL   0» 

men  ;  his  scheme  of  declaring  them  just  in  the  sight  qf  tK« 
lavs ;  or  of  acquilling  them  from  punishment,  and  admitting 
them  to  favor." 

2.  "In  regard  to  this  plan,  it  may  be  observed,  (4.)  It  is 
not  that /ii*  righteousness  becomes  ours.  This  is  not  true; 
end  there  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  which  that  can  be  under- 
Blood.  But  it  is  God's  plan  for  pardoning  sin,  and  for  treai- 
ing  us  as  if  we  had  not  committed  it.'' 

3.  p.  110.  "Being  now jasHJied.  Pardoned;  accepted  as 
his  friends." 

4.  p.  124.  "  Unto  justification.  The  work  of  Christ  is  de- 
signed to  have  reference  to  many  offences,  so  as  to  produce 
pardon  or  justification  in  regard  to  them  all."  The  comment 
on  chap.  v.  19,  "  For  as  oy  one  man's  disobedience  many 
were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one,  shall  many 
be  made  righteous,"  is  thus  summed  up,  p.  127,  128.  "The 
sense  of  the  verse  is  this  :  '  As  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of 
one,  the  many  became  "inneis,  without  explaining  the  mode 
in  which  It  is  done ;  so  the  many  became  riglueous  in  the 
mode  and  on  the  terms  which  are  explained  1  Righteous. 
Justified.     Free  from  condemnation.'  " 

5.  p.  182.  "  It  is  God  that  justifielh.  That  is,  who  has 
pardoned  them,  and  admitted  them  to  his  favor :  and  pro- 
nounced them  jus/  in  his  sight." 

6.  p.  217.  "The  moment  a  sinner  believes,  therefore,  he  is 
justified ;  his  sins  are  pardoned  :  and  he  is  introduced  into 
the  favor  ot  God." 

The  inconsistency  of  this  with  Standards  is  evident.  Con. 
XI.  i.  ii.  iii.  Lar.  Cat.  70,  71,  7i,  Sh.  33.  See  Scriptures 
quoted  under  IX.  and  Rom.  vi  16-18,  19.     1  feu  i.  14—22. 

On  this  point  the  court  below  was  divided  in  opin- 
ion. Sotue  of  the  Presbytery  thought  that  the  au- 
thor did  mean  to  exclude  Christ's  active  obedience 
Irom  the  doctrine  of  justification  entirely  ;  others 
though  that  he  did  not.  U  was  alleged  by  one,  that 
on  this  point  he  held  the  doctrine  of  the  New-England 
divines,  viz.  that  justification  consists  of  pardon  only. 
Now  I  wish  to  ask  whether  there  is  any  positive  me- 
rit in  tnere  sutreriiig?  Any  thing  in  it  to  entitle  any 
one  to  a  blessing?  Or  whether  reward  must  not  be 
the  eflect  of  legal  obedience?  Surely  it  is  the  doc- 
trine ot  reason  and  of  the  Bible  that  heaven  and  eter- 
nal life  are  tlie  reward  of  Christ's  obedience.  His 
Bufferings  lifted  his  people  up  from  the  gates  of  death, 
but  it  is  his  active  obedience  which  raises  them  up  to 
the  joys  of  iieaven. 

I  am  not  well  acquainted  with  what  is  called  the 
New  Divinity ;  but  1  believe  it  to  be  contained  in  that 
book.  Certainly  it  is  new  to  me  :  and  as  new,  I 
think,  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  to  the  Confea- 
sion  of  Faith.  I  rind  here  a  system  of  doctrine — a 
combinaiion  of  cognate  tenets  which  pervades  the 
book  irom  one  end  to  the  other.  I  invite  the  atten- 
tion ot  the  church  and  of  this  Synod  to  the  eystematio 
nature  of  error.  One  error  implies  another,  and  the 
whole  hangs  together.    It  might  perhaps  be  difficult 


MB.   BARNES.  151 

to  sustain  the  third  charge,  if  it  is  taken  alone  and 
independent  of  all  the  other  points  mainiained  in  this 
volume  :  but  as  taken  in  connexion  with  the  rest,  it 
is  easily  substantiated.  li  it  be  so  that  a  new  theol- 
oojy  from  ihe^east  is  taught  by  Mr.  Barnes,  then  the 
charge  of  aggression  does  net  belong  to  me.  I  indeed 
brought  the  charges  in  this  prosecution ;  but  who 
brought  into  our  church  the  new  theology?  I  rest 
upon  tlie  broad  fact  that  it  is  the  bringing  m  of  this 
new  theology  which  has  produced  all  the  agitation 
which  now  distracts  the  Presbyterian  church.  Be- 
fore this  new  doctrine  was  brought  among  us,  there 
was  1.0  difficulty — we  enjoyed  comparative  peace. 
This  none  can  deny.  Is  there  a  man  made  who  will 
venture  to  deny  ilV 

But  it   is  asked,  Will  you  insist  on  trying  a   man 
for  a  mere  ditierence  in  the  use  of  terms?  for  the 
mere  technicalities  of  theology  ?    This  I  am  aware 
has  been  objected  against  the  present  prosecution: 
and  it  has  even  been  held  to  be  a  high  iniquity  to  dis- 
tract the  community  about  mere  words.    But  I  ask, 
is  liiis  a  mere  dirt'erence  in  words?    1  have  heard  it 
said  again  and  again,  we  agree  as  to  the  substantial 
facts  of  the  case.   Nay,  one  brother  solemly  appealed 
to  Jehovah,  declaring  that  both  sides  believed  in  eub- 
Btance  the  same  tilings.    And  I  am  asked,  will  you 
take  a  man  ruegenly  to  task  for  the  exposition  of  a 
word  ?  The  objection  looks  plausible.    Butil  the  dis- 
pute is  about  a  word,  I  ask,  who  brought  this  word 
m  here?  I  throw  back  the  ar^umentum  ad hominem. 
Are  the  words  also  which  it  is  said  we  are  disputing 
new?  A-e  they  terms  unknown  to  the  Conlession  of 
Faith?    If  then  the  dispute  is  about  words,  in  the 
name  of  truth,  why  press  upon  us  these  new  words 
that  cause  so  much  dispute  ?  VVho  is  it  that  distracts 
the  church  about  words?   Is  it  we,  or  is  it  they  who 
have  brought  them  into  the  church?  If  these  words, 
have  caused  all  the  uproar,  then  in  the  name  of  hea- 
ven I   beseech  you,  take  them  away — take  the  new 
words  away,   and  you  take   the  dispute  away.    If 
there  is  no  essential  difference  of  meaning  between 
us,  why  insist  upon  expressing  the   old   meaning  ia 
new  terms?    Why  not  stick  to   the  old  phrases,  and 
thus  put  out  the  fire?    Nay — we  heard  the  appellee 
declare  tha.t  he  had  not  changed   any  of  his  princi- 
ples— though  he  had  changed  a  few  terms  in  the  new 
edition  of  his  book,    I  apprehend,  therefore,  that  the 
present  dispute  is  not  about  words,  but  things.    That 
when  you  vote  on  this  appeal,  you  will  be  deciding 
between  truth  and  error.    But  if  the  author  of   thia 
book  thinks  that  the  dispute  is  merely  about  words, 
then  he  will,  of  course,  acquiesce  in  j^our  decision  :  a 
result  that  will  certainly  be  very  desirable.    If  those 
who  have  rent  the  peace  of  our  Zion,  will  take  away 


152  TRIAL    OF 

the  new  and  strange  words  ihey  have  brought  in 
iimong  us,  (and  they  can  easily  do  it,)  then  peare 
will  again  dvveil  in  our  tents  and  prosperity  within 
our  palaces.  Then  we  shall  asaiti  dwell  in  unity, 
and  be  a  band  of  brothers.  Bui  there  can  be  no 
solid,  no  permanent  peace,  except  I'rom  union  in  the 
truth.  And,  brethren,  how  glorious  would  such  a 
peac3  be.  Then  misapprehension,  and  mutual  re- 
criminations, and  evil  surmi^ings,  and  evil  speakings 
would  be  far  away  :  and  the  whole  Presbyterian 
ehurch  in  the  United  States  would  feel  and  act  aa 
one  man.  Ah,  what  would  she  then  be?  what  might 
•she  not  then  accomplish  ?  United  by  the  bonds  of 
this  confession,  she  could  soon  spread  the  gospel  of 
God  over  the  whole  earth.  She  possesses  abundant 
power,  were  not  the  sinews  of  her  strength  weaken- 
ed and  cut  asunder  by  the  controversies  that  divide 
her  children.  May  God  grant  us  a  speedy  return  oi 
union  and  peace:  and  such,  I  doubt  not,  will  be  the 
result  ol"a  righteous  decision  ot  the  present  cause. 

Dr.  Jiinkin  having  closed  his  argument, 

The  MotfLRATER  inquired :  Is  the  appellee  in  tlie 
house,  and  ready  to  answer  as  one  of  the  original; 
parties? 

No  answer  was  given. 

Mr.  II.  bRECKiNr.iuGE.  I  move  that  it  be  entered 
nn  the  minutes,  that  the  appellee  being  called  upon,, 
did  not  answer. 

Dr.  McDowell.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  asccr- 
♦  ain  whether  he  is  present,  and  if  not,  to  send  for 
him? 

Mr.  R.  BiJEOKiNRiDGC.  I  move  it  be  entered,  that 
he  was  called  upon,  and  did  not  answer;  and  that 
ihc  2d  Presbytery  be  called  upon  to  say  whether 
they  have  any  thing  now  to  offer  in  delence  of  the 
judgment  given  by  thorn  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes. 

Dr.  J.  BKECKiNRinGE.  Unless  we  intend  to  issue  a 
formal  citation  to  Mr.  Barnes,  there  is  no  need  ot 
any  further  step  now  in  relation  to  him:  but  it  is  the 
proper  time  for  him  to  be  privately  notified  that  he 
lias  now  an  opportunity  to  come  forward  and  reply, 
if  he  is  so  disposed. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinru:)Ge.  I^he  is  here,  I  move  that 
he  be  heaid :  but  I  ani  wholly  opposed  to  sending  for 
him. 

Moderator.  The  Moderator  conceives  that  the 
duty  of  the  Synod  is  done,  when  the  original  parties 
have  been  called  upon  to  speak.  He  now  calls  up- 
on the  members  of  the  inferior  judicatory  appealed 
froin,  to  render  reasons,  if  any  they  have,  in  explana- 
tion or  defence  of  their  sentence. 

Dr.  McDowell.  Is  it  imperative  on  them  to  say 
something?  or  is  it  only  meant  that  they  have  the 
privilege,  if  they  choose,  to  avail  themselves  of  it? 


MR.  BARNES.  163 

Moderator.  They  have  the  privilege  ;  but  they 
are  under  no  obligation  to  exercise  it. 

Dr.  Ely.  I  have  an  answer,  in  the  name  of  the 
Presbytery,  which,  with  the  leave  of  the  Moderator, 
I  will  read. 

Dr.  Ely  thereupon  read  the  following: 

"In  obedience  to  the  call  which  they  have  received  from 
the  llev.  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  to  appear  and  be  heard  in 
explanation  of  the  grounds  of  their  decision  in  the  case  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Jsnltin  against  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  tlie2d  Presby- 
tcry  of  Philadelphia  appear  at  ihebar  of  this  Synod,  with  an 
earnest  desire  to  avoid  all  contumacy  in  the  case,  and  all  dis- 
respect to  their  superiors  in  the  Lord  ;  at  the  same  time  the 
Presbytery  declare  that  their  reasons  for  not  taking  part  in 
the  present  trial  have  already  been  submitted  to  this  Rev. 
judicatory.  If  any  requisition  is  still  made  that  this  Presby- 
tery shall  take  part  m  the  trial  now  pending,  we  again  re- 
Bpcctfully  appeal  and  complain  of  the  proceedings  against  us 
to  the  next  General  Assembly. 

By  order  of  Presbytery  : 

John  L.  Ghant,  Moderator. 

York,  Nov.  2d,  1835. 

Mr.  R  Breckinridge.  The  oQer  of  reply  is  made 
to  the  members  of  ihat  Presbytery  individually,  not 
an  a  Presbytery. 

Dr.  Ely.  They  can  come  en  masse,  if  they  please. 
They  choose  this  mode  of  reply. 

Mr.  VVi.NCHESTER.  I  move  that  the  reply  of  the 
Piesbytery  be  put  on  the  record  of  Synod. 

Mr.  R.  Brecki.nridge.    Is  it  signed. 

Clerk.    It  is  not  signed. 

Mr.  McCalla.  Ifyou  record  it,  the  court  above 
will  consider  you  as  having  recognized  this  paper  as 
an  appeal  and  complaint. 

Mr.  Winchester.    I  wish  it  read  again. 

[The  paper  w.is  again  read.] 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  hope  the  Moderator  will 
call  upon  those  who  introduced  the  paper,  to  have  it 
■igned. 

Dr.  Ely.  I  am  very  willing  to  sign  it.  I  can  bring 
up  the  whole  Presbytery,  thirty  strong,  if  it  will  gra- 
tily  the  brother,  to  show  and  prove,  by  oath  it  he 
wants  it,  that  I  was  ordered  to  present  the  paper. 

Moderator.  The  other  previous  steps  having 
been  gone  through,  it  now  only  remains  that  the  roll 
be  called,  that  the  members  of  Synod  may  have  an 
opportunity  of  expressing  their  views  of  the  whole 

C3i3. 

The  name  of  Dr.  Green  having  been  called, 
Mr.  McKinney  suggested  the  expediency  of  begin- 
ning at  the  other  end  of  the  roll.  We  have  heard, 
eaid  he,  as  yet,  but  one  side  only  :  if  we  begin  the 
call  at  this  end  of  the  roll,  we  shall,  for  some  time, 
hear  only  the  views  of  those  who  are  oa  the  same 
13» 


154  TRIAL    OF 

«lde  with  the  appellant ;  but  if  we  commence  at  th© 
other  end,  we  sliall  the  sooner  hear  those  lirethren 
who  are  of  a  dillerent  opinion.  I  move  that  the  call 
M.-nraence  at  ilie  other  end  of  the  roll. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Kennedy.  I  hope  we  siuill  not  hegin  at 
the  lower  end  of  the  roil:  there  are  many  of  us  quite 
young  men,  and  we  siiould  prefer  first  hearing  the 
views  of  our  seniors. 

The  question  being  put,  the  Synod  was  about 
equally  divided  ;  whereupon  Mr.  McKinney  withheld 
his  motion,  and  the  roll  was  called  in  the  usual  or- 
der. 

Dr.  Gheen. 

I  don't  know  that  in  the  whole  course  of  my  lon^ 
life,  I  ever  felt  such  a  weight  of  responsibility  attach- 
ing itself  to  any  act  touching  ecclesiastical  concerns, 
as  presses  upon  me  at  this  moment.  Nor  is  this  a 
mere  temijorary  thin».  It  is  a  feeling  whicli  has  fol- 
lowed me  lor  these  tlirce  years  past.  Mr.  Barnes's 
commentary  on  the  Romans,  is  little  else  than  an 
expansion  and  vindication  of  the  doctrines  contained 
in  liLs  sermon  entitled  '"  The  way  of  Salvation."  I 
liave  compared  the  two  since  this  discussion  com- 
menced, and  in  reading  his  book  1  find  tfiat  every  es- 
sential princii>!e  which  it  contains  was  previously  im- 
hodied  in  that  sermon.  The  case  has  rested  in  my 
mind  for  a  series  of  years.  After  having  read  not  the 
■whole  of  his  book  but  a  considerable  part  of  it,  in  order 
that  I  might  take  in  the  course  of  his  reasoning,  I 
then  selected  some  parts,  where  all,  save  one,  of  the 
points  of  his  system  are  brought  forvvnrd,  which  are 
discussed  in  his  book.  Before  this  discussion  com- 
menced, I  had  drawn  out  my  views  on  those  points, 
und  on  their  contrariety  to  ihe  standards  of  our 
church,  and  had  handed  them  to  the  brother  who  is 
the  appellant  in  this  cauf^e.  Since  the  present  dis- 
cussion has  been  in  progress,  I  have  most  atleniively 
followed  every  speaker,  and  listened  closely  to  every 
word,  (as  1  should  gladly  have  listened  to  the  appel- 
lee, had  he  chosen  lo  address  us,)  and  I  tliirik  the  ap- 
pellant has  sustained  the  charges,  v  very  one  of  them 
which  he  brought  in  ihe  court  lulow;  and  has  no 
less  established  another  charge  which  is  contained  in 
mypapcr  which  I  handed  to  him,  but  which  he  did 
not  bring  forward  in  a  distinct  form.  I  will  not  now 
mention  what  it  is.  I  liad  however  no  conversation 
with  the  appellant  previously  to  the  trial ;  none  at  all. 
I  knjw  not  what  I  should  say  more.  1  have  no  partir 
ality  in  the  case,  and  I  riiould  highly  crimi/iate  myself 
if  there  were  any  such  feeling  in  my  breast.  I  was 
compelled,  in  the  c'ty  of  Philadelphia,  to  take  a  lead- 
ing part  in  tlie  discussion,  and  never  did  1  do  anything 
BO  reluctantly.  1  have  formed  my  opinion  after  much 
thought,  much  consideration,  and  1  hope,  some  hum- 


MR.    BARNES.  155 

ble  prayer  to  the  ^reat  Fountain  of  Light;  and  my 
opinion  is  that  ihie  book  stand''  in  direct  antiliiesiH  to 
gome  of  the  fundanientdl  doctrines  of  our  Confi'Fsioo 
of  Faith.  He  denies  the  whole  doctrine  of  iinputation 
of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity:  and  althouj^h  he  does 
not  deny  the  imputation  of  Christ's  riiriiteousnees  ta 
his  spiritual  see  I,  yet,  as  he  wholly  omits  it,  and  as 
what  he  does  sav  on  the  subject  is  ajrainst  ihe  impu- 
tation of  Christ's  active  obedience,  it  appears  to  me 
that  Mr.  Barnes  does  not  hold  that  doctrine  which 
was  so  truly  desisi;nated  by  Luther  as  articidus  slan- 
tic.  et  cadrnlis  ecclesius.  Tliat  we  are  connected 
with  the  iledeemer,  and  indebted  to  him,  somehow 
or  other,  for  our  salvation,  it  appears  ;iiat  he  does 
hold:  liut,  the  imputation  of  his  riiiht(  ousness  to  be- 
lievers I  must  conclude  he  does  not  hold. 
Mr.  W.  Latta. 

I  have  endeavoured,  during  the  progress  of  this 
trial,  to  strip  myself  of  all  partialiiy,  and  it  is  my 
opinion  that  tlie  charges  of  the  appelinnt  have  all 
been  sustained.  I  had  ihouglu  of  speaking  at  some 
lengtii  in  relation  to  them,  but  I  do  not  lielii^ve  that 
I  could  make  the  matter  more  clear  than  it  is  ;  and 
as  we  all  wish  to  save  the  time  of  the  Synod,  [ 
will  add  no  more.  I  believe  the  charges  have  been 
proved. 

Mr.  PoTTa. 

I  did  intend  to  give  a  silent  vote  :  but  I  deem  it  my 
duty  to  express  the  firm  conviction  of  my  mind  that 
the  doctrine  of  this  book  in  reference  to  the  itriputa- 
tion  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  is  nothing  more 
than  an  extension  of  the  doctrine  advanced  in  Mr. 
Barnes'  printed  sermon,  entitled  "  The  Way  of  Sal- 
vation." I  should  have  been  extremely  glad  to  have 
lound  Mr.  Barnes  subjecting  hiuifrelf  to  the  requisi- 
tion of  Synod,  and  coming  forward  to  vindicate  pub- 
licly the  doctrine  he  has  promulgated.  The  causes 
why  he  has  not  done  so  are  best  known  to  liimsell 
and  to  the  Presbytery  of  which  he  forms  a  part.  The 
facts  stated,  and  the  illustrations  given  by  the  appel- 
lant, conipel  me  to  vote  that  the  decision  of  the  Pres- 
bytery is  not  in  accordance  with  the  evidence  now 
placed  belbreus;  and  I  shall  therefore  sustain  the 
appeal. 

Mr.  McCai^la. 

My  opinion  is  that  the  charges  have  been  proved, 
and  iha,t  the  appeal  ought  to  be  sustained, 
Mr.  Janvier. 

1  have  given  the  utmost  aitention  to  the  evidence 
and  the  argument  submitted  to  Synod,  and  have  en- 
deavored to  see  whether  some  of  the  charges  could 
not  be  dismissed  for.want  ol  proof,  but  I  find  they  are 
all  BO  linked  together,  that  they  must  all  share  one 


156  TRIAL   OF 

fate.  The  proton  pseiidos,  the  great  fundamental 
error  of  the  whole  scheme,  is  the  denial  o(  the  impu- 
tation of  Adam's  sin. 

Mr.  C.  Williamson. 

I  believe  that  the  whole  of  the  charges  have  been 
•usiaiacd. 

Mr.  Winchester. 

If  I  understand  the  charge,  it  was,  that  in  Mr. 
Barnes'  book  are  taught  doctrines  in  contradiction  to 
our  Confesfsion  of  Faith  and  to  the  Scriptures.  I  take 
it  for  granted  that  our  cJtandards  are  according  to 
the  Bible,  and  my  conviction  is  that  the  doctrines  in 
this  book  are  not  taught  in  our  standards,  but  that 
just  tiif!  opposite  is  tauj^ht.  1  do  not  think  ii,  is  for  us 
to  decide  wliether  those  doctrines  are  taught  in  the 
Scripturcr,  or  not.  1  know  that  this  is  the  popular 
impression  ;  but  I  look  at  our  ordination  vows.  1  did 
solemnly  say  that  I  believed  all  the  doctrines  taught 
in  the  Conlcssion  and  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
church:  I  made  no  reservation.  1  cannot  believe  the 
doctrines  in  this^  book  are  according  to  those  stand- 
ards, and  therefore  not  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
My  judgment  is  that  the  charges  are  euctaiued. 
Mr.  Parker. 

I  believe  the  charges  have  been  fully  sustained. 
Mr.  J.  Grier. 

According  to   the  scniiments    expressed   by    Dr. 
Green,  1  believe  the  charges  are  sustained. 
Mr.  Harned. 

From  the  beginning  of  this  business  I  have  felt  pe^ 
culiar  sympathy  with  the  accused.  I  have  known 
some  ol  the  difficulties  anJ  temptations  he  has  lallen 
into ;  and  all  my  prepossessions  were  in  his  favor : 
but  on  hearing  ihe  charges,  and  the  argument  of  the 
appellant,  I  asked  mysell  whether  any  man  subscrib- 
ing the  Confession  of  Faith  and  taking  the  ministerial 
vows,  he  had  taken  could,  lay  his  hand  upon  his 
heart,  and  say  that  this  book  is  in  accordance  with 
the  Confession  lie  has  solemnly  sworn  to  maintain? 
I  entirely  believe,  as  I  shall  answer  it  at  the  bar  of 
Jesus  Christ,  that  the  charges  have  been  fully  made 
out,  and  that  the  appeal  should  be  sustained. 
Mr.  Bradforo. 

If  I  Gould  possibly  get  rid  ol  the  performance  of  an 
imperative  duty,  my  age  and  inexperience  might  per- 
haps excuse  me:  but  my  ordination  vows  compel  me 
to  act.  I  attended  the  trial  belbre  the  inferior  Judi- 
catory ;  and  I  have  with  equal  care  attended  lo  what 
has  been  said  here;  and  my  solemn  conviction  is  tliat 
the  appeal  ought  to  be  sustained. 
Mr.  Macklin. 

I  think  the  appeal  should  be  sustained :  but  I  also 


MR.   BARNE9.  157 

wiah  to  exprciss  my  opinion  of  the  danfferoui'  nature 
of  those  errors  which  luive  been  proved  against  tho 
Appellee,  I  remember  tiiat  I  am  one  of  those  who 
watch  for  souls  as  they  who  must  give  an  account: 
and  however  humble,  still  that  I  am  eat  as  a  watch- 
man upon  Zion's  walls,  and  must  give  the  alarm 
when  an  enemy  approaclie.?.  The  enemy  has  often 
cre})t  into  the  church  of  Christ  unawares.  It  has 
long  been  my  belief  that  in  the  last  days,  the  church 
must  go  through  trials  jirecisely  of  this  kind — that 
men  will  bring  in  diimnable  heresies,  and  in  such  a 
way  too  as  to  deceive,  it  it  were  possible,  the  very 
elect.  The  Providence  of  God  has  thrown  me  here: 
and  I  am  fully  convinced,  from  the  evidence  of  my 
own  eyes,  that  if  these  errors  shall  continue  to  make 
progress,  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  such,  will  no 
longer  have  an  existence  in  this  land.  If  the  doctrines 
I  have  taught,  be  Presbyterian  doctrines,  and  be  the 
truth  of  God,  then  must  the  doctrines  in  that  book  be 
false,  and  anti-Presbyterian.  The  one  or  the  other 
must  fall.  Knowing  from  the  history  of  the  church 
how  progressive  error  has  ever  been  from  the  days 
of  Paul  to  the  days  of  Arius,  and  from  kis  time  to 
those  in  which  we  live,  and  over  all  the  face  of  the 
church,  in  all  countries  of  the  old  world  and  the  new» 
and  that  unless  error  be  corrected,  and  these  innova-- 
tions  be  put  to  a  slop  to,  and  we  return  to  the  good 
old  way,  the  result  must  be  endless  confusion,  I  hold 
it  our  duty  to  act  with  decision  on  tlic  ci^.se  belore-  us. 
I  believe  that  the  appeal  ought  to  be  sustained. 
Mr.  Elliot. 

A  week  has  scarce  elapsed  since  I  was  ordained^ 
and  it  is  consequently  hut  a  short  time  since  I  care- 
fully read  over  the  Confession  of  Faith  in  immediate 
contemplation  of  the  vows  I  was  to  take:  and  mv 
judgment  is  that  the  opinions  expressed  in  this  boolc 
do  not  accord  with  those  in  the  Confession.  I  think 
the  appeal  ought  to  be  sustained. 

Mr.  Ramsay  (uiissionary  to  India.) 

One  day,  in  Bombay,  1  was  reading  the  Testament 
with  my  Pundit,  and  we  came  across  the  passa^-e 
where  it  is  declared  iliat  "  all  flesh  shall  see  tlio 
salvation  of  God."  The  Pundit  said,  "  I  believe  that 
doctrine.  You  are  a  Christisn  and  I  am  a  Hindoo: 
but  I  believe  that  all  men  not  only,  buc  all  the  cowa 
and  horses  and  dogs  in  the  whole  world  will  be 
saved."  From  ihis  verse  of  the  Bible  he  undertook 
to  prove  that  all  the  dogs  and  cats  should  go  to 
heaven;  and  insisted  that  it  was  declared  in  our  own 
Scriptures.  I  told  him  that  that  was  not  the  mean- 
qf  ihe  words  "  all  flesh"  as  used  here.  I  adduce  thie 
tact  to  shew  what  different  interpretations  men  will 
sometimes  attach  to  the  same  text  of  Scripture.    As 


IS8  TRIAL   OW 

to  this  case  of  brother  Barnes,  I  have  heard  one  side, 
but  not  the  other.  As  a  n)ispionary,  unconnected 
with  any  party,  I  muet  say  that  unlil  I  have  heard 
what  brother  Barnes  has  to  say,  I  cannot  decide  that 
the  charge  has  been  sustained.  1  was  present  at  the 
Presbytery  a  lew  days  during  the  trial,  wlien  I  heard 
Dr.  Junkiii  urge  and  explain  several  heads  of  the 
charge,  and  I  heard  Mr.  I3arnes  repeatedly  say  that 
lie  did  not  believe  or  maintain  what  Dr.  Junkin 
charged  upon  him.  I  cannot  vote,  in  the  lump,  or  in- 
deed at  all.  until  I  hear  from  the  accused  what  it  ia 
he  does  believe  and  mean  to  affirm.  1  cannot  vote 
'  sustain'  or  '  not  sustain.' 

Dr.  Mc  DowELL. 
If  I  could  be  sati.-;fied  that  you  have  the  case  fully 
before  you,  I   phould  know  what  opinion  to  express 
without  hesitation:  but   there  is  a  difficulty  which 
Blill   presses  on  my  mind.    If  all  the  evidence  waa 
here  which  couid  be  given  I  should  without  hesita- 
tion give  my  opinion  in  the  case.    I  believe  that  the 
appellant,  in  his  statement  as  now  submitted  tons,  has 
proved  that  Mr.  Barnes  believes  all  sin  to  consist  in 
voluntaiy   action:    that  he  denies  the  covenant  of 
works,  the  federal  Headship  of  Adam  and  the  impu- 
tation of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  :  and  il  I  could 
vote  on  such  evidence  as  has  bfcn  submitted  to  us,  1 
should  vote  to  sustain  the  appeal.    I  believe  there  are 
errors   in  his  book  on  the   llomans,  important    and 
fit^n^proup  errors  j  hut  I  do  not  know  whether,  if  the 
rebutting   testimony  were  heard,  he  miglit  not  be 
able  to  bring  such  counter  evidence  from  other  pas- 
sages of  Ilia  book  as  would  convince  mc  that  he  did 
not  mean  to  assert  these  positions.    We  are  not  to 
eettle  the  question  of  his  consistency  as  an  author; 
with  that  we  arc  not  concerned  :  bat  I  think  we  inler 
some  things  from  his  lanj^uage  which  1  doubt  whether 
lie  holds.    I  heard  it  said  by  the  appellant,  as  he  was 
proceeding  in  his  argument,  that  some   i)oints  of  hia 
charge  were  admitted  by  Mr.  Barnes:  while,  at  the 
same  moment,  there  were   members  just  behind  me 
who  were  present  at  the  trial,  and  who  affirmed  as 
confidently    that  Mr.   Barnes  did   not  admit   rhem. 
Which  of  these  authorities  am  I  to  believe  ?  Mr. 
Barnes  is  not  here  to  explain:  I  cannot  say  but   ti-.at 
lie   and   his  Presbytery   have    taken   constitutional 
grounds  in  refusing  to  ansv/er :  be  that  as  it  may, 
however,  I  am  in   the  dark  as   to   facts;  and  under 
such  circumstances  I  dare  not   vote  to  sustain  the 
appeal.     If  Mr.  Barnes  admitted   the  evidence  to  be 
Buliieient  and  to  be  correct,  I  should  then  say,  sustaiu 
the  charges  throughout. 

Dr,  Neill. 
J  have  paid  a  good  deal  of  aiteation  to  this  case  for 


MB,.    BARKB8.  159 

the  last  six  or  eight  months  :  and  have  carefully  read 
those  pans  of  tlie  Notes  on  Romans  which  bear  on 
the  points  attempted  to  be  made  out  in  the  cliargea 
of  the  appellant:  and  am  free   to  say,  that  1   could 
not,  by  any  explanations  I  could  conceive  of,  make 
them  consistent  with  the  avowed  doctrines  ol'  the 
Presbyterian  church.    This  was  my  view  of  the  mat- 
ter before  the  trial  was  had.    Since  then  I  have  ex- 
tended my  reading  in  the  work  itself  I  have  careful- 
ly attended  to  the  charges  of  Dr.  Junkin,  and   have 
read  a  great  deal  on  the  subject :  and  I  remain  still 
under  the  same  impression  as  before.    I  lo^e  brother 
Barnes;  I  fully  appreciate  his  worth:  but  I  believe 
that  he  is  mistaken  on  these  points  of  doctrine.    The 
impression  is  strengthened  on  my  mind  that  there  is 
error,  serious,  dangerous,  I  do  not  say  fatal,  or  radi- 
cal, contained  in  this  book.    1  believe  that  there  are 
pious  men  who  hold  tlie  same  views:  but  that  is  not 
the  question  we  have  to  decide.    All  we  have  to  de- 
termine is,  whether  these  views  are  in  accordance 
with  the  standards  of  our  church.    That  is  the  gist 
of  the  question.     1  am  free  to  say  this  much.    I  wish 
to  say,  in  addition,  that  I  have  felt  with  great  solem- 
nity the  responsibility  urider  which  1  act.    1  know  my 
own  weakness,  and  I  wish  that  the  other  side  could 
have  been  heard.    I  leel,  and  have  felt  from  the  be- 
ginning, that  neither  the  common  understanding  of 
mankind,  nor  the  spirit  of  our  institutions,  nor  the 
law  of  Jesus  Christ,  nor  the  law  of  the  land,  will  en- 
dure that  a  man   should  be  condemned   without  a 
hearing.    I  know  that  in  the  present  case  it  i^eems  to 
be  the  fault  of  the  man  himself,  and  ol  his  friends, 
that  he  has  not  been  heard.    Nor  do  I   mean  to  cast 
the  slightest  reflection  upon  the  Synod.    I  do  not,  in- 
deed, see  how  we  could  have  done  otherwise,  thua 
far.    But  while  there  are  different  opinions  as  to  the 
suppression  of  the  Presbytery's  records,  ai.d  as  to 
Mr.  Barnes'  concurrence  in  such  suppression,  still  it 
is^laimed  to  be  done  on  constitutional  ground.  I  will 
not  slop  to  argue  that  point  with  our  brethren:  I 
believe,  however,  that  the  record  ought  to  have  been 
produced.    Yet,  under  all  circumstances,  !  do  think  it 
will  not  be  for  the  permanent  good  of  the  church  for 
us  lo  go  into  a  final  decision  of  the  case.    I  am  sure 
that  if  we  decide  after  having  heard   but  one  side  of 
the  cause,  our  proceedings  will  scarcely  pass  before 
the  court  above.    On  tins  ground   1  know  not  that  1 
shall  be  able  to  vote.    But,  as  lar  as  !  am  able  to  un- 
derstand the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  in  this  book,  and  as  far  as  1  have  heard 
the  argument  adduced  on  one  side  of  the  question,  it 
.  does  appear  to  me  that   the  charges  are  made  out. 
Some,  however,  are  not  of  very  great  consequence  ; 
euch,  for  instance,  as  that  in  reference  to  the  exteat 


160  TRIAL   OF 

of  A  Jam's  knowledge:  although  I  admit  thai  the 
design  of  these  ptissages  would  seem  to  be  to  show 
that  no  covenant  was  made  witli  him.  As  far  as  wo 
have  light,  I  think  the  charges  liave  substantially 
been  proved:  but  I  doubt  whether  it  is  expedient 
that  iliis  Synod  should  come  to  a  vote  as  to  the  ex- 
tent ol"error  proved. 

Mr.  BovD. 
I  have  no   qualms  of  conscience  in  respect  to  the 
testimony.  I  must  believe  that  the  whole  of  the  testi- 
mony worth  hearing  hab  been  before  the  court.    The 
uppeulougiit  to  be  sustained. 

Dr.  CUYLER. 

I  was  never,  in  all  my  lile,  placed  in  circumstances 
where,  but  for  a  sense  of  incumbent  duty,  I  should 
be  more  reluctant  to  give  an  opinion.  But,  stand- 
ing^, as  here  1  do,  as  a  judge  of  a  court  of  the  Lord's 
house,  I  leel  the  in)perious  duly  which  presses  upon 
me.  1  did  not  hear  the  trial  in  the  court  below :  I 
declined  being  pretcnt  at  it:  hut  1  have  read  Mr. 
Barnes'  book,  and  the  charges  Ibundod  upon  it,  and 
so  much  of  the  Icsliniony  as  has  been  adduced  ;  and 
I  have  also  read  our  Confession  of  Failh  and  both  the 
Catechisms,  on  the  points  involved  in  this  trial :  and 
have  endeavored  to  compare  the  charges  with  the 
prool  ("rom  the  book  and  from  our  standards;  and  I 
do  deliberately  believe,  beftre  God,  that  the  charges 
have  been  made  out,  and  that  the  appeal  is  sustaina- 
ble. As  to  tlie  difficulties  which  have  been  felt  and 
expressed  by  some  of  the  brethren,  they  would  cer- 
tainly have  great  force,  it,  by  any  act  of  God  in  his 
providence,  itie  ai)pe!Iee  was  deprived  of  the  opportu- 
nity of  being  present  to  answeri:  but  the  appi  llee  has 
voluntarily  waived  every  advantage  he  nught  have 
derived  from  an  explanation  in  reply.  1  never  re- 
gretted the  bearing  of  a  trial  more  deeply:  but  still  I 
believe  that  the  court  was  right  in  proceeding,  not- 
withstanding all  objections.  I  am  persuaded  it  will 
be  for  the  peace  as  well  as  the  purity  ol  the  church, 
that  this  appeal  should  be  issued,  and  leave  the  re- 
sult, to  ourselves,  in  the  hands  of  One  who  is  perfect 
truth  and  laiihfulness,  and  who  is  to  be  the  final 
Judge  both  of  us  and  the  accused. 

Mr.  Belville. 
I  have  felt  some  embarrassment  because  any  judg- 
ment we  may  give  will  be  e.v  parte  ;  but  I  am  great- 
ly relieved  from  the  lact  that  all  the  testimony  need- 
ed by  the  accused  is  in  his  own  possession,  viz.  the 
book  itself,  and  his  own  argument  founded  thereon.  1 
am  compelled  to  sustain  the  appeal,  not  because  all 
the  charges  have  been  made  out,  but  because  those 
which  are  of  the  most  consequence,  viz.  Mr.  Barnes' 
rejection  of  the  doctrines  of  representation  and  impu- 
tation have  been  clearly  established. 


MR.    BARNES.  161 

Mr.  Adaik. 
It  appears  to  me  that  our  citation  as  judf^e*!  com- 
pels us  to  go,  ill  our  decision,  upon  the  testimony 
alone.  I  shall  not  proceed,  in  the  vote  I  may  give 
on  this  occasion,  upon  anything  I  may  have  pfevious- 
ly  thought  upon  Mr.  Barnes'  case,  at  home.  Now, 
according  to  my  impression  of  the  matter,  we  have 
the  testimony  on  one  side  only  ;  so  that  if  I  am  driven 
to  a  vote,  I  must  vote  e.v  paite.  If  I  were  driven  to 
that  necessity  I  should  certainly  say  that  Mr.  Barnes 
is  guilty  of  a  denial  of  all  the  leading  doctrines  in  our 
Confession  of  Faith;  and  not  only  so,  hut  of  all  the 
most  important  doctrines  of  ihe  Bihle  also.  But  it  is  a 
very  diliereni  thing  to  decide  upon  a  mere  one-sidtd 
statement  ol"  the  case,  and  to  nave  the  accused  bo- 
fore  us  and  decide  after  hearing  his  explanation  and 
defence.  Suppose  that  any  member  ot  this  body  were 
placed  before  us  for  judgment,  and  that  the  truth  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  or  of  the  Word  of  God  it- 
self were  to  be  tested  by  the  resulr,  I  am  sure  there 
is  noc  one  n'.an  here  who  would  sufi'er  eitlier  to  be 
put  in  jeopardy  by  the  cunning  and  the  argumenta- 
tive adroitness  of  an  infidel.  They  would  insist  upon 
a  rejly.  But  if  the  confession  and  even  the  Bible  it- 
self might  receive  injury  undel-  such  circumstances, 
is  it  wonderful  it  this  book  of  brother  Barnes'  should 
be  in  danger  of  being  misrepresented?  I  confess 
myself  utterly  at  a  loss  to  form  an  opinion  in  the 
case:  but  il  I  am  driven,  without  farther  proof,  to 
make  up  and  express  an  opinion,  it  would  be  this, 
that  Mr.  Barnes  holds  opinions  I  never  suspected, 
and  deserves  not  only  deprivation  of  his  office,  but  to 
be  cast  out  of  the  christian  church.  There  have 
been  some  things  said  of  this  book  which  require  to 
be  noticed.  It  has  been  said  that  the  book  is  full  of 
contradictions.  It  this  is  so,  then  admitting  that  in 
^ome  passages  it  does  teach  what  is  contrary  to  the 
Confession,  brot'ier  Barnes  might  possibly  be  able 
from  other  passages  to  show,  with  equal  or  superior 
evidence,  that  it  teaches  the  contrary.  It  has  been 
truly  said  that  if  Mr.  Barnes  seems  at  contradiction 
with  himself,  the  fair  mode  of  interpreting  his  book 
would  be  to  take  all  its  parts  together  and' make  out 
a  sense  in  which  they  will  all  agree,  as  far  as  may  be 
practicable.  I  have  proof  that  it  has  been  said  the 
book  is  very  contradictory  in  its  sentiments :  while 
tnat  is  the  case  1  am  not  at  liberty  to  form  an  opi- 
nion from  certain  passages  selected  out  of  it.  1  ad- 
rait  Dr.  Junkin  has  established  by  positive  evidence 
some  of  the  charges  advanced  by  him,  provided  there 
be  ne  rebutting  testimony.  The  first  ^)oini  charged 
is  that  Mr.  Barnes  maintains  that  man  is  able  to  keep 
the  commandments  of  God.  Now  I  hold  in  my  hand 
a  revievv  of  Mr.  Barnes'  book  contained  in  the  Bibli- 
14 


162  TRIAL   OF 

cal  Repertory,  a  work  published  under  the  sanrlion 
ol  Princeton  Seminary.  In  page  22  of  that  work,  (1 
quote  from  a  pamphlet  form  oi"  the  review,) 

"The  third  doctrine  on  the  subject  is  presented  in  our 
standards  in  this  form  :  '  Tliat  no  mere  man,  since  the  fail, 
IS  able,  in  this  hfe,  perrectly  to  keep  the  commandments  of 
God.'  It  is  an  inability,  which,  arisinn;  out  of  the  sinful  state 
of  the  soul,  is  entirely  inexcusable.  It  is  that  of  which  every 
man,  whether  saint  or  sinner,  whatever  may  be  his  philoso- 
phy, is  conscious.  It  is  that  of  which  Paul  speaks  when  he 
says  'how  to  perform  thnt  which  is  good  I  find  not.'  Horn. 
vii,  18,  and  again,  '  These  are  contrary,  the  one  to  the  other, 
so  that  ye  cannot  do  (me  poiete)  the  things  that  ye  would. 
Even  this  opinion  Mr.  Barnes  seems  torscognize  as  correct." 

This  shows  me  that  I  am  unable  to  form  an  opi- 
nion under  present  circumstances.  Here  is  a  writer 
of  no  mean  standing  who  declares  that  Mr.  Barnea 
admits  what  Dr.  Junlun  alie<?ps  that  he  denies. 

Another  charge  is  the  maintaining  that  faith  is  an 
act  of  the  mind.  But  the  reviewer  thinks  there  is 
no  harm  here.    Mr.  Barnes  says  : 

"Faith  is  always  an  act  of  the  mind.  It  is  not  a  creatad 
essence  placed  within  the  mind.  It  is  not  a  substance  crea- 
ted independently  of  the  soul,  and  placed  within  it  by  Al- 
mighty power.  It  is  not  a  principle;  for  the  expression 'a 
principle  of  faith'  is  as  unmeaning  as  a  principle  of  joy,  or  a 
principle  of  sorrow,  or  a  principle  of  remorse." 

On  this  the  reviewer  observes: 

"There  is  no  harm  in  this  remark,  any  more  than  in  say- 
ing faith  is  not  a  house  or  a  tree,  or  a  river;  which,  we  pre- 
sume, has  been  as  often  held  and  said  as  that  it  is  a  created 
essence,  or  substance  created  independently  of  the  soul. 
The  subsequent  sentence  about  principles,  however,  seems 
to  intimate  what  otherwise  we  should  have  been  slow  to  ima- 
gine, that  the  remaik  in  question  was  designed  to  have  a  bear- 
ing on  the  question  whether  dispositions  and  acts  admit  of 
being  properly  distinguished.  As  such  we  are  willing  to  let 
it  pass  for  what  it  is  worth.  We  presume  that  the  expres- 
sion 'principk'  of  faith'  which  sounds  new  to  our  ears,  if  used 
at  all,  is  to  be  understood  as  Mr.  B.  wishes  it  to  be  under- 
stood, when  he  tells  us  (page  103)  the  faith  of  Abraham  and 
that  of  christians,  "is  theri  fore  the  same  in  principle,  though 
it  may  have  reference  to  difi'erent  objects." 

Again  it  is  charged  that  Mr.  Barnes  holds  faith  to 
be  insputed  for  righteousness.  Suffer  me  to  show 
how  incompetent  1  am  to  decide  upon  tiie  difference 
between  great  nien,  who  so  widely  differ,  while  the 
accused  party  is  himself  absent.  In  the  review  it  is 
said : 

"  The  important  expression  in  Rom.  iv,  3,  &,c.,  '  Faith  was 
imputed  for  righteousness,'  Mr.  Barnes  explains  in  several 
dinerenl,  and,  as  it  appears  to  us,  inconsistent  ways.  But 
(continues  the  reviewer)  Mr.  B.  in  his  subsequent  remarks 
says  expressly,  '  Faith  is  not  the  mcritorioiLs  ground  of  ac- 


MR.    BARNKS.  163 

ceptanco,  for  then  it  would  have  been  a  work.  Faith  was  as 
much  his  own  act  as  any  act  of  obedience  to  the  law  :'  and 
again, 'Kaith  is  a  mere  instrument — a  sine  qua  non — that 
which  God  has  been  pleased  to  appoint  as  a  condition  on 
which  men  may  be  treated  as  righteous.'  " 

The  next  point  is  the  doctrine  ofimpiitation,  which 
Mr.  Barnes  is  accused  ol"  denying  in  toto.  But  the 
reviewer,  alter  stalinjj  some  oC  the  objections  to  and 
misrepresentations  ot'  this  doctrine  by  Mr.  Barnes, 
speaks  thus ; 

"Notwithstanding  all  the  obiiciions  urged  against  this 
doctrine,  and  the  obluquy  which  he  endeavors  to  fasten  upon 
i',  Mr.  B.  teaclics  it,  to  its  full  extent.  On  page  122  he  says, 
'Men  are  indubitably  affected  by  the  sin  of  Adam:  as,  e.  g. 
by  being  born  with  a  corrujit  disposition,  with  loss  of  righl- 
<iousnpss,  and  subjection  to  pain  and  wo.'  Here  are  evils, 
(continues  the  reviewer)  indescribably  great  and  dreadful, 
which  are  declared  to  come  on  all  men,  prior  to  all  agency  or 
foncurrenee  of  their  own,  for  a  sin  committed  some  thousand 
years  before  their  birth,  and  beyond  their  control.  Farther 
than  this  who  would  wish  to  go  7  Farther  the  Scriptures, 
the  refinners,  our  own  standardis,  and  the  great  body  of  old 
orthodox  divaics  do  not  go." 

Is  not  language  hke  this,  proceeding  from  men 
never  reproached  with,  or  suspected  ol'lieresy,  calcu- 
lated to  throw  me  into  embarrassment'? 

Again:  I'rom  the  statements  and  argument  of  Dr. 
Junkin  it  would  seem  that  Mr.  Barnes  denies  the  doc- 
trine of  total  depravity.  But  the  reviewer,  after 
(^peaking  ol  Mr.  Barnes'  inconsistency  on  this  point, 
and  o'tserving  that  in  language  he  denies  the  doc- 
trine, adds  as  follows: 

"He  teaches,  however,  the  old  orthodox,  and  almost  uni' 
vcrsally  received  doctrine  on  the  subject,  in  terms  no  less  ex- 
plicit. On  page  122  he  s^ys,  'In  like  manner,  although  men 
are  indubitably  aifected  by  the  sin  of  Adam  ;  as  e.  g.  by  being 
born  with  a  cormpt  disposition,  with  loss  of  righteousness, 
with  siibjectment  to  pain  and  woe,  yet  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  they  participate  in  the  direct  effect  of  sin,  in  eter- 
nal death,  without  being  I'ersonally  transgressors.'  What 
more  could  any  one  desire?  (asks  the  reviewer.)  This  is 
nearly  the  dtfiuition  cf  original  sin  as  given  in  the  Conies- 
eisns  of  the  Reformation.  This  language  cannot  be  under- 
stood otherwise,  than  as  teaching  that  men  are  born  destitute 
of  righteousness  and  with  a  corrupt  disposition." 

Now  if  Mr.  Barnes  teaches  "  in  terms  no  less  ex- 
plioil"  the  orthodox  doctrine  concerning  depravity 
than  the  terms  in  vvhich  he  denies  it,  how  can  I  con- 
demn him  till  he  explains?  If  the  Repertory  comes 
forward  and  declares  that  Mr.  Barnes  teaches  all  the 
cloctrines  which  he  is  accused  of  denying,  and  if  he  is 
absent  under  a  formal  protest  against  our  mode  of 
proceeding,  and,  as  he  thinks,  on  constitutional 
j;,'rounds,  1  cannot  say  that  he  is  absent  contumacious- 


I&4  TRIAL   OF 

ly,  nor  can  I  pass  senlence  on  his  doctrine.  Suppose 
a  man  comes  to  me  and  claims  five  dollars:  I  doubt 
vvhellier  his  claim  is  just,  and  the  case  ^oes  to  court. 
Am  1  10  be  held  guilty  oi  fraud  in  the  meanwhile,  be- 
fore lliere  is  any  legal  decision  ol  the  claim  ?  Surely 
not.  And,  as  Mr.  Barnes  absents  himsell'on  what  he 
claims  to  be  constitutional  ground,  1  feel  embarrassed 
ni  pronouncing  upon  his  case.  Nor  dare  I  convict 
him  of  denvinir  the  (lindamenlal  truths  of  the  Con- 
fession anci  of  the  Bible,  and  of  being  almost  a  Soci- 
iii.in,  so  long  as  the  editors  of  the  Repertory,  those 
orthodox  n>en,  justify  me  in  holding  the  opposite  opi- 
nion. 

Mr.  KENNEDY  here  rose  to  a  point  of  order.  It  had 
occurred  to  him  that  if  the  paper  were  read  on  which 
the  Presbytery  had  proceeded  to  make  up  their  de- 
cision it  might  go  I'ar  to  relieve  some  minds. 

MoDERATOH.    That  paper  has  been  read. 

Mr.  Gibson. 
I  was  a  spectator  ol  all  that  passed  in  the  lower 
court,  and  1  can  say  tiiat  Synod  has  all  the  testimony 
before  it  whicli  was  exhibited  belbre  that  court.  1 
could  indeed  have  wished  that  the  appellee  had  ap- 
peared before  us  and  defended  his  cause.  And  I  had 
lioped  it  would  have  been  so^  when  I  heard  the  elo- 
quent appeal  he  nude  to  his  own  Presbytery,  on  the 
cveiiiiig  of  the  day  on  which  thi^y  rel'used  their  re- 
cords for  our  use.  I  heard  him  then  say  that  if  those 
records  were  all  before  you,  and  the  trial  should  be 
oruerly  conducted,  he  was  persuaded  the  whole  Synod 
would  be  convinced  tiiai  he  was  guiltless  of  the  mat- 
ters charged  against  him.  Mr.  Barnes  then  seemed 
to  wish  a  decision  ia  his  case,  and  did  not  appear  dcr 
sirous  of  talcing  any  appeal.  If  this  decided  opinion 
ot"  Mr.  Barnes  did  not  of  itself  present  to  his  Presby- 
tery one  of  the  strongest  appeals  that  could  be  ac- 
dressed  to  any  body  ol  men,  I  am  entirely  deceiv- 
ed. And  sure  I  am  that  if  such  an  appeal  as  thai 
then  made  had  been  addressed  to  any  other  Pres- 
bytery in  our  body,  if  it  had  been  made  to  the  old 
Presbytery  of  Pliikuielphia,  or  to  the  Synodical  Se- 
cond Presbytery,  and  had  been  rejected,  the  whole 
community  would  have  lifted  up  ihcir  voice  against 
such  a  ])roceeding.  But  as  the  Assembly's  Second 
Presbytery  are  all  the  personal  friends  of  Mr.  Barnes, 
it  must  be  considereil  as  intended  as  a  measure  of  fa- 
vor to  him.  But  certainly  his  appeal  to  them  was 
one  of  the  strongest  I  ever  heard.  But,  apart  from 
all  this, — having  heard  the  proceedings  in  ihe  lower 
court,  and  having  now  attentively  listened  to  all  thai 
has  been  said  by  the  appellant  in  support  of  the 
charges,  1  am  compelled  to  say  that,  in  my  judgraeni 
:hey  are  6i46ia,ined, 


MR.   BARNES.  165 

Mr.  DuRFOR. 

I  am  asked  to  ;2;ive  a  vote,  and  I  now  appeal  to  my 
own  coriscicnco  and  to  the  fcearcher  of  hearts,  while 
I  declare,  in  respect  to  the  doctrines  liere  promul- 
gated by  Mr.  Barnes  in  hid  book,  that  ever  yince  I 
have  known  any  tiling,  and  have  been  able  to  search 
the  Scriptures  for  iny8elf,  I  have  been  persuaded 
they  are  conirary  to  the  doctrines  of  the  liible,  and 
to  those  contained  in  our  Confession  and  Catechisms. 
And  1  do  believe  they  were  intended,  or  at  least  that 
they  have  operated,  to  break  up  and  destroy  the 
peace,  harmony  and  union  of  the  Presbyterian  churt  li. 
I  shall  vote,  therefore,  to  sustain  the  appeal. 
Mr.  Andrew  Brown. 

I  was  first  led  to  pay  attention  to  Mr.  Barnes's 
book,  h)  reading  the  sermon  he  published»  entitled 
"  Tlie  Way  of  Saivation."  1  have,  siHce  then,  j)ar- 
tially  examined  his  Notes  on  the  Romans,  and  I  find 
therein  statements  expressly  contrary  to  the  stand- 
ards of  our  church  and  to  the  word  of  God.  I  do  not 
think,  a^:  some  of  the  brethren  appear  to  believe,  that 
this  proceeding-  and  all  the  evidence  are  wholly  eo; 
part/'.  It  is  Mr.  Drirnes's  bo(  k  that  is  on  trial:  and 
it  is  the  book  itsell' which  is  the  evidence:  and,  from 
what  I  have  read  and  what  I  have  heard,  I  am  fully 
convinced  the  appeal  ought  to  be  sustained. 

Mr.  McMaster. 
I  have  been  deeply  wounded  by  the  course  of  the 
accused.  My  expectations  have  been  wholly  disap- 
pointed. I  diJ  expect  that  Mr.  Barnes  was  about  to 
pursue  a  very  magnania^ious  course,  that  he  was 
coming  forward  like  an  honest  and  fearless  man,  to 
give  a  fair  exposition  of  his  views,  resolved,  that  if 
his  brethren  should  find  him  wrong,  they  should  at 
least  find  him  honest  and  honorable.  I  derived  this 
expectation  fiom  the  deciaraiion  of  Mr.  Barnes,  that 
he  was  ready  for  trial.  And  when  1  found  that  Pres- 
bytery withholding  from  his  hands  and  from  ours  do- 
cuments \yhicli  they  supposed  important  to  the  con- 
ducting of  the  trial,  I  began  to  suspect  that  there 
was,  on  their  part,  some  design  to  injure  a  man  who 
was  disposed  to  cast  himself  fairly  and  openly  on  the 
knowledge  and  integrity  of  his  brethren.  But  I  am 
sorry  to  perceive  that  he  seems  exactly  to  have  cal- 
culated his  distance  and  so  to  have  trimmed  his  toes, 
as  to  stand  precisely^  where  he  could  evade  his  decla- 
rt  lion  of  readiness  for  trial  hv  an  explanation.  Why 
his  brethren  have  withheld  their  records,  is  not  for 
me  to  say  ;  but  it  would  seem  that  thej  had  some 
expectation  of  taking  advantage  of  the  embarrass- 
ment thus  thrown  upon  the  prosecution.  It  strikes 
me  that  you  have  taken  unnecessary  pains  to  pre- 
serve the  rights  of  the  accused,  after  he  and  his 
14* 


166  TRIAL  or 

friends  have  openly  declared  that  they  would,  liiaU 
ihey  nie<T.iil  to,  witlihold  from  you  papers  necespary 
to  the  re^uhir  issuing:  of  the  cause.  Supposing  a 
man  charged  with  a  felony  should  withhold  the  evi- 
ilence  which  was  necetsary  to  clear  him,  what  would 
any  court  do  ?  would  they  go  about  peeking  to  ohtaiu 
other  testi.nony  for  hie  acquittal?  1  trow  not.  Mr. 
Barnes's  friends  are  performing  to  him  what  the 
shirt  of  Nessus  did  to  Hercules:  ihey  have  poisofied 
him  by  their  couri.?eI.  There  arc  two  ways  of  gain- 
ing a  cause.  Sometimes  the  accused  endeavors  to 
rise  above  the  judgment  of  the  court,  by  courting  pub- 
lic opinion  and  getting  it  on  his  side.  This  is  a  pro-. 
mising  road  to  success:  for  there  is  something  in  the. 
heart  of  all  Americans  which  rises  in  a  moment  to 
resist  all  that  is  called  oppression.  1  am  not  quite 
pure  but  there  may  be  some  such  design  here.  But 
what  surprises  me  beyond  all  description,  is,  that  ob- 
jection should  be  made  to  trying  a  man  when  he  i.s 
absent  by  his  own  choice,  and  when  his  friends,  with 
his  assejit,  withhold-  what  is  necessary  to  vindicate 
the  rights  of  a  good  conscience.  Arid  after  all,  of 
what  great  avail  would  his  delence  have  been  to 
him?  Laying  aside  all  evidence  on  his  part,  the  ap- 
pellant laid  before  you  proof,  of  a  nature  that  could 
not  be  fjuestioned.  He  added  one  passage  to  another 
Irom  the  book  of  the  accused,  and  then  ciitng  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  showed  that  the  two  were  in 
direct  opposition  to  one  another.  Is  any  one  ol  us  so 
destitute  of  common  sense,  that,  when  we  see  the 
doctrines  of  a  book  set  in  opposition  to  the  doctrines 
cf  the  Confession  of  Faith,  we  cannot  tell  the  dlM'er- 
cnce?  Mr.  Barnes,  man  of  talents  as  he  is.  could 
never  put  such  explaiKil  ions  on  his  language  as  to 
prevent  our  seeing  such  a  direct  contradiction.  They 
who  suppose  he  could,  must  surely  suppose  u.s  to  bc^ 
downright  fools.  There  is  one  reason  on  account  of 
which  1  could  regret  that  the  accused  has  not  been 
present;  I  should  have  liked  to  ask  him  some  ques- 
tions, and  to  have  seen  whether  he  would  not  liave 
been  compelled  to  run  into  a  far  more  dangerous  phi- 
losophy than  any  which  he  has  charged  on  the  Con- 
lession  of  Faith.  But  while  these  errors  are  quite 
dangerous  and  alarming,  there  is  one  thing  which 
grieves  me  most  of  all.  The  opinions  of  Pelagiup, 
while  con(in«d  to  a  i'ew  volumes  of  polem  ic  ih  <  c 
are  comparatively  obscure  and  little  known  but 
here  they  are  introduced  into  a  volume  which  is  in- 
tended for  the  hands  o*  our  otlVpring — and  where 
they  will  make  impressions  which  ihe  best  and  sound- 
est of  teachers  will  never  be  able  to  remove.  And 
all  this  is  placed  side  by  side  on  the  same  page  with 
the  sacred  text  as  a  gloss  upon  its  meaning.  This, 
indeed,  is  truly  painful.    That  mischievous   error 


MR.    BARNES.  lf>7 

should  be  wrapped  up  in  a  book  whii;h  i  rofet-Bec  tolur- 
iiinh  anexposiiioii  ol  llie  holy  Script urfs  for  thcyoulh 
of  Sabbafli  schools  and  Sabr)alh  echool  teacliere,  this 
id  most  afThclins.  For  il'lhe  opinions  declared  in  that 
book  are  true,  I  am  ready  to  say  of  it,  as  one  of  tiie 
ablest  men  of  our  day  did  say — If  any  man  will  take 
Iheee  doctrines  out  of  the  Bible,  1  will  willingly  give 
him  up  all  the  rest  ol  the  book,  and  run  my  chance 
without  either.  But  that  the  book  contains  God's 
truth,  is  a  conviction  which  can  never  reach  my  un- 
derstandin:^.  I  do  believe  that  the  charges  of  the 
iippellant  h.ive  been  most,  fully  supiiorted.  I  do  not 
believe,  if  a  man  were  as  subtle  as  man  ever  has 
been,  and  as  ingenious  as  the  evil  one  himself  can 
teach  him  to  l)e,  he  can  ever  contravene  or  explain 
away  the  evidence  which  has  been  laid  bcloi  e  us. 
The  mm  who  could  write  such  a  book,  must,  it 
eeems  to  me,  have  a  most  oblique  mind.  He  cannot 
look  directly  at  ttuth.  He  seems  every  where  to 
make  hisovvn  reason  the  rule  of  his  beliel,  rather  than 
the  sacred  standard  of  revealed  truth,  to  which  all 
truly  enlightened  reason  is  ready  ever  to  refer  its 
cjnclusions,  and  to  which  every  renewed  heart  will 
ever  promptly  bow,  althouijh  what  it  declares  may 
be  ever  so  contrary  to  all  our  previous  feelings  and 
conclusions. 

The  man  who  has  not  a  heart  to  believe  what  God 
teaches,  has  not  the  heart  to  be  a  Christian.  1  can- 
not avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  appeal  should  be 
sustained.  There  is  one  thing  which  calls  upon  you 
to  glvo  not  indeed  a  precipitate,  but  a  fearless  deci- 
sion. Consider,  if  you  defer  this  cause,  how  long  it 
may  hang  undiicided.  Ever  since  this  man  entered 
our  body,  there  has  beea  a  perpetual  discussion  re- 
specting all  the  points  contained  in  this  book.  Seeil 
is  sowing  ail  over  the  church  which  may  lead  to  er- 
rors yet  greater  and  more  danzerous;  errors,  that 
may  prevail  among  our  posterity  long  after  this  im- 
mediate controversy  has  been  laid  in  the  dust.  By 
ending  the  jnatter  now,  Synod  may  be  influencing 
the  future  fate  of  millions.  Shall  we,  then,  suller 
the  evil  still  to  continue  and  to  spread?  I  trust  not. 
Mr.  James  Latta. 

The  times  and  the  seasons  in  which  we  live  de- 
mand tlie  attention  of  the  Synod.  They  are  such, 
that  a  book  like  this  must,  if  true,  do  a  great  deal  ot' 
good,  and  if  untrue,  a  great  amount  of  evil.  We  all 
rejoice  in  tlie  esiablishment  of  Sabbath  schools  and 
Bible  classes,  and  their  almost  universal  extension. 
That  a  proper  commentary  on  the  Scriptures,  in  a 
convenient  and  portable  form,  would  be  extremely 
useful,  all  agree.  In  these  latter  respects,  the  bookd 
oi  Mr.  Barnes  have  peculiar  advantages,  and  incon- 
eequence  have  obtained  a  very  extensive  circulation 


168  TRIAL    OF 

Tlie  fir.-5t  two  volumes  received  the  pfoncral  efinction 
of  our  Subbiiih  school  iiistniclors,  and  a  third  was 
looked  for  with  anxiety;  and  were  it  calculated  to 
benefit  t'le  rising  gcneraMon,  its  diffusion  could  not 
but  hrwe  tin  most  salutary  e.l'tcis.  It  becomes  u.^, 
a3  juii^Ts  in  thi^  cause,  and  as  those  whose  office 
makes  them  guardians  of  youth  and  shepherds  over 
ihe  lambs  of  Chrisi.'s  flock,  to  remember  that  our 
places  must  soon  be  filled  by  others,  and  that  while 
we  tarry  here,  it  is  our  duty  to  provide  truth  for  the 
youn.s^  anil  prolci't.  tiiem  fi-o.ri  err 'jr.  But  that  this 
nook  contains  radical  errois  in  doctrine,  I  am  tho- 
roughly convinced  ;  and  that  it  is  of  such  a  chiiracter 
that  we  cannot?  ifely  recommend  it  to  those  who  are 
lookm;j  to  u-i  for  instruction.  Such  bein:?  ilie  case, 
it  hecomss  vis,  as  a  Synod,  to  bear  our  testimony 
again-^t  it,  and  to  ifo  so  speedily.  Some  of  those  who 
would  hivii  united  most  readily  in  such  a  testimony, 
hive  i^one  the  way  of  all  tlie  e  irth  :  but  we  who  yet 
remain,  shnuld  be  prompt  in  performing  our  duty.  No 
doubt  it  mi.^ht  be  very  pleasant  to  us  to  throw  this 
task  on  the  necks  of  the  Gt-n.-Mul  Assembly  ;  but,  in 
the  meanwhile,  this  book  will  be  makinfr  its  way  into 
our  Sabbath  schools  and  Bible  classes,  carrying  with 
it  its  pernicious  errors.  We  are  called  on  to  bear 
witness  loudly  and  immedi.ilely.  However  unplea- 
sant may  bo  the  task,  and  whitcver  may  be  our  per- 
sonal attachment  lo  the  autlior  of  the  book,  wfiose 
manners  and  deportment  are  peci-liarly  insinuating, 
we  are  called  on  to  love  Christ  i\nd  his  gospel  better 
than  any  son  or  brother,  or  than  even  our  own  lives 
Admittin:?^  the  book  to  contain  Fome  truth,  it  is  so 
interwoven  anil  mixed  up  with  error  that  they  can- 
jiot  be  separated  :  that  it  contains  errors  none  can 
deny  :  some  may  think  that  there  is  weight  of  truth 
enough  to  bear  the  errors  down  ^  bat  I  apprehend  not. 
That  the  book  contains  a  regular  system  of  erroneous 
doctrine,  all  connected  logethcr,  is  to  me  as  clear  ai? 
any  thing  can  be  clear  to  the  human  mind:  and  un- 
less so.no  powi-^r  .should  entirely  destroy  my  intellect, 
1  never  ;an  believe  that  tliat  system  of  doctrme  is  in 
conibruiity  with  the  standards  of  our  church.  I  am 
prepared  to  bear  my  testimony  against  it;  and  I  hope 
the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  I  shall  liave  the  op- 
portunily. 

Mr.  Barr. 
If  I  believed  that  Mr.  Barnes  holds  and  teachcR 
the  error.s  charged  upon  him  by  the  Appellant,  1 
pliould  have  no  hesitation  in  sustaining  the  appeal. 
That  there  are  errors  charged  whicii  are  indirect 
contradiction  to  our  standard  I  am  fully  sati.<fied ; 
and  that  the  Appellant  lias  made  out  a  strong  case  is 
also  very  plain.  Tlie  extracts  he  has  given  from  Mr. 
Barnes's  book  do  go  far   to  show   that  it,  contains 


Mil.    BAKNKS.  169 

damnable  error  I  have  no  doul)t.  Whetlier  if  the  re- 
butting tesiiinony  were  before  us  I  should  still  be  of 
the  eanie  opinion  I  cannot  suy.  We  are  told  that  the 
work  abounds  in  direct  contradictions  :  that  what  ia 
affirmed  on  one  page  ic"  indirect  contradiction  to  that 
which  is  asserted  on  another  :  and  while  some  por- 
tions contain  tlie  error  charged,  others  as  we  have 
heard  it  strongly  asserted,  expressly  deny  the  error. 
Now  the  General  Assembly  has  ordained  that  no 
man  shall  be  condemned  as  a  Jieretic  lor  the  use  of 
language  which  by  a  fair  interpretation  can  be  made 
to  mean  any  thing  else  than  heresy.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances howam  I  to  tell  whether  Mr.  Barnes  is  a 
heretic  or  not  ?  I  have  not  read  his  bool<:  it  may  be 
that  when  I  do,  I  shall  find  that  the  passages  quoted, 
if  taken  in  connexion  with  the  context,  do  not  convey 
any  fundamental  error.  I  cannot  vote  on  such  a 
case.  If  I  did,  I  should  proceed  wholly  ex  parte. 
Thi.",  as  I  must  account  to  a  higher  Judge,  I  cannot 
do.  I  do  certainly  think  that  Beth  Mr.  Barnes  and 
his  Presbytery  have  acted  in  a  most  injiuiii'ious  man- 
ner: but,  as  we  have  not  the  whole  case  before  us  I 
cannot  vote  upon  it  intelligently,  and  therefore  I 
shall  not  vote  at  all. 

Mr.  BoYER. 

I  am  persuaded  from  all  the  light  I  have  been  able 
to  collect  that  the  charges  have  been  established. 
We  have  ail  the  testimony  before  us  which  was  laid 
before  the  lower  court :  we  have  Mr.  Barnes's  hook, 
and  the  Confession  of  Faiih— we  have  seen  them  laid 
side  by  side,  and  faithfully  compared — and  we  find 
llicm  to  be  at  variance  with  each  other. 
Mr.  PerkixMS. 

I  cannot  think  that  the  appeal  has  been  sustained, 
it  is  true  that  I  have  not  read  all  the  book  ;  but  I  have 
looked  over  those  parts  of  if.  which  seem  to  be  the 
most  otTeiisive,  and  I  do  not  find  in  them  any  thing 
peculiarly  new.  I  have  seen  the  .same  things  anil 
iituird  them  all  many  years  ago,  It  is  well  knov.'n  to 
all  of  you  who  are  of  advanced  years,  that  there  has 
long  been  in  the  church  what  is  familiarly  called  the 
New  Divinity.  The  advocates  of  it  used  lo  be  called 
"New  Lights" — then  we  had  "New  Lights"  and 
"  Old  Lights:"  some  time  alter  we  had  a  great  noise 
about  "  Hopkinsianism  :"  and  now  the  dust  is  about 
"  New  School"  and  "  Old  Scliool."  But  I  rather  think 
they  are  about  the  same,  things  we  usrd  to  have, 
v/ii,ii  some  slight  shades  ol  dillerence  :  and  we  havo 
had  the  same  disputes  for  as  much  as  fifty  years  to 
m/  own  personal  knowleilge,  for  I  have  been  for  more 
than  lorty  years  intimately  acquainted  with  the  chief 
men  on  both  sides.  I  have  heard  ihem  preach.  I 
have  conversed  with  them  in  their  study.  I  have 
preached  with  them  and  lor  them,  and  I  have  talked 


no  TRIAL    OF 

mucli  uilli  iheni  on  the  two  kinds  of  divinity  which 
have  lUiide  so  niucii  noiec  amoii^  us:  and  the  coiiclu- 
eisn  I  have  come  to  is  this,  that  both  as  to  the  men. 
and  as  to  their  systems  of  doctrine,  there  is  not  lialf 
tlie  dillerence  between  their  heads;  that  they  tliem- 
selvcs  think  tlicre  is  :  and  as  to   tlicir  liearls,  tliey 
are  pretty  much  alike.     To  be  sure  they  hke  to  bull 
their  heads  together,  but,  alter  all,  there  io  mighty 
little  dillerence  between   them  in  heart.    It  comes 
across  our  pride  to  be  contradicted;  and  we  minis- 
ters are  very  proud.     That  is  what  I  was  told  when 
I  WIS  very  younir,  and  that  too  by  a  man  much  and 
igUly   respeciied  and   beloved   by   all  I   have  ever 
no.vn,  and  my  acquaintance  has  been  very  exten^ 
ive.    Ail  the  older  ministers  of  our  church  I  knew 
■^ell.    I   w;(s  lonj?  an  intimate   friend  of  President 
)vvi,2:ht,  (and   1  mention  this  in  order  to  pive  the 
nore  Wfii^ht  to  what  1  am  e,oing-  to  say.)    The  mi- 
lister  I  aUude  to  said  to  me  when  I  we»s  quite  a  lad, 
'Ministers   arc  the  proudest  order  ot  men  in  the 
vorld."     He  repeated  the  remark  asrain  and  aj^ain. 
studied  divinity  for  a  while  wiih  him.    He  had  a 
^reat  deal  of  missionary  ze\l,  and  I  went  with  him 
in  a  missionary  tour  over  the  Green  Mountains  and 
ato  Canada.     We  had  a  g'reat  deal  of  talk  together 
m  our  journey,  and  he  told   me  many  things  that  1 
lever  could  have  imagined. 

[Here  a  member  obt'erved  that  the  worthy  fait'i 
lad  ci^'tainly  lost  sight  of  the  subject  before  Synod. 
■/Ir.  1'.  however  went  on  vviih  his  desultory  and  irre- 
evant  remarks  which  excited  laughter  among  sorr;C 
md  much  di^approbalion  in  other  j)  irts  ol  the  house, 
intil,  at  length,  the  Moderator  called  Mr.  Perkins  to 
irder.  The  old  gentleman  was  persisting  to  sneak, 
vhen  his  fri(.>nds  iiiterpo^ed,  and  he  relu:'.canlly  co:i' 
lented  to  resume  his  seat. J 

Mr.  Dickey. 

I  am  snrry  th:it  it  has  not  been  ia  my  power  to  be 

in  the  house  during  the  whole  of  tlie  discussion;  but 

as  I  w.M  absent  a  part  of  the  time,  and  did  not  hear 

all,  i  cmmt  vote  either  lor  or  against  sustaining  the 

appa  li.    B'.it  had  1  been  I'.resi^nt  throughout,  I  s-hould 

have^^l'olt  equally  bound  to  ;;ive  no  opinion,  because 

Mr.  Birns's   has   had   no  opportunity  to  present  his 

virivv-i  to  the  Synod.    I  have  nodispo.-ition,  however, 

to  encTurago   the   Presbytery  in  the  no:iition  it   has 

t.a'ten,  or  th-^  accu.-ed  in  his  reluctance  to  ap))ear  be^ 

fof.'^  us  in  his  (kd'ence.    11  he  hul  seen  it  propei-  to  do 

:o,  we  should  have  had  a  trial  calmly  conducted  ;  the 

evere   remarks   which  have   be -n    made  upon  the 

'resbyt:ry  would  have  been  spared,  and  we  should 

ave  h-id  a  better    understanding  of  what  are  Mr. 

Jirnd.^'  real  sentiments.    It  may  bo  thar.  one  part  o( 

is  bjo!c  ex['lai  IS  another.    I  hope  we  shall  come  to 


MR.   DARNE8.  171 

no  final  decision  wiiile  the  irial  has  been  so  I'lr  froiri 
complete.    Suppose  the  accused  was  on  trial  lor  his 
life,  who  is  tliere  here  lluit  would  not  deler  jiidctnent 
until  after  he  had  heard  him  speak  for  himself?  Paul,        N^ 
we  read,  was  permitted,  bel'ore  a  heathen  tribunal, 
to  speak  for  himself:  and  surely  a  man's  character, 
above  all  a  minister's,  is  worih   more   to  him  than 
even  his  life.     1  have  been  sorry  to  see  the  prosecu- 
tion pushed  on  so  hastily,  and  to  perceive  that  sonic 
brethren  seem  so  very  anxious,  not  to  say  impatient, 
for  a  decision.     We  have  no  right  to  impute  evil  mo- 
tives to  any  man ;  yet  there  have  been  many  insinua- 
tions ajja  ins  t  the  orthodoxy,  if  not  the  truth  of  ail 
who  are  supposed  to  tavor  what  is  called  the  New 
Divinity.    I  have  a  venerated  friend   who  has  had 
.many  conversations  with  brother  Barnes  on  points 
of  doctrine,  and  who  expressed  his  belief  not   only 
that  he  was  a  converted   man,  but  that  he   received 
ex  animo  the  doctrines  of  ihe  Presbyterian  ciiurch, 
althouEjh  he  adopted  terms  which  that  friend  did  not 
approve.    He  said  that  brother  Barnes  held  to  the 
depravity  of  the  heart,  the  necessity  ol  the  Spirit's^ 
influence  in    regeneration,   and    the    imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness  for  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 
Now  I  feel  very  reluctant  to  condemn  a  man  wiioni 
one  I  so  greatly  venerated   was  unwilling  to  judge. 
We  ought  to  remember  that  we  may  ourselves  be 
one  day  on  trial  for  our  opinions  :  none  can  tell  how 
soon,  and  none  can  say  how  far  those  who  judge  us 
may  proceed.    It  is  an  inquisitorial  spirit    *    * 
Here  the  moderator  called  to  order. 
Mr.  D.  Do  I  make  any  personal  insinuation  ?  Have 
I  called  any  man  here  an  inquisitor  ? 

Moderator.  I  cannot  admit  such  language  to  be 
used  here. 

Mr.  D.  Well  sir,  those  who  choose  to  give  cur- 
rency to  injurious  insinuations  against  their  nrethren; 
may  do  so.  Those  who  are  determined  to  charge  all 
the  brethren  ot"  what  is  often  called  theNew  School, — 
because  they  are  willing  to  hold  a  man  in  their  afi'ec- 
tions  although  he  may  not  receive  all  the  technicali- 
ties of  a  particular  system — with  heterodoxy  and  with 
heresy,  may  do  so;  but  it  is  not  righteous  conduct. 
We  are  told  in  the  Bible  that  the  spirit  of  the  gospel 
is  LOVE  ;  that  the  end  of  the  commandment  is  chari- 
ty :  I  trust  we  shall  all  learn  this  practically  :  at 
present,  1  fear,  we  are  very  far  from  exemplifying  it. 
Mr.  SiMMs. 
I  feel  quite  as  much  reluctance  to  condemn  Mr. 
Barnes  or  his  book  as  the  last  speaker  :  but  he  finds 
one  objection  in  his  way  that  I  cannot  find  in  mine : 
via.  that  Mr.  Barnes  has  had  "  no  opportunity"  to 
vindicate  himself  and  his  book.  Such  an  opportunity 
has  certainly  been  offered  to  him :   it  has  not  only 


\1'2  TRIAL   Ot 

been  ofTorcd ;  it  has  been  urffcd  upon  him:  and  he 
has  declined  it.  11"  tlierelore  his  not  ansvverinij  shall 
work  any  loss  or  injury  to  his  cause,  we  are  certain- 
ly not  answerable  lor  it.  The  evidence  submitted  lo 
us  is  eullii'ient  to  confirm  me  in  the  belief  that  his 
boo!i  contains  errors  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrine  ol"  the  Conl'essions  and  Catechisms  ol'  our 
Cluirch  :  and  not  too  see  this  is  with  me  impossible, 
unless  black  is  white.  Nothinjj  short  ol"  this  will  ever 
prove  that  the  book  and  the  Conlession  agree. 
Mr.  Davis. 
Those  portions  of  Mr.  Barnes'  book  on  which  the 
charge  ofthe  appellant  arefoumled  1  have  examined 
for  mysell":  besides  which  1  have  heard,  intoto,  his 
argument  in  supj^ort  ol"  them  :  and  I  think  it  is  due  lo 
this  Synod  (than  which  perhaps  a  greater,  numeri- 
cally speaking,  has  never  been  assembled  since  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  nor  on  a  more  important  subject,)  to 
eayafevv'  words  in  explanation  of  my  views  of  this 
case.  Certain  it  is,  '\{' fama  clumosa  is  any  evidence 
of  truth, that  Mr.  Barnes'  book,  now  u.ider  trial,  con- 
tains the  errcl-s  charged  on  it  by  Jie  appellant,  and 
we  ought  to  consider  the  eti'ects  of  this  state  of  things 
not  only  on  the  Presbyterian  church,  but  on  all  other 
churches  in  our  land.  It  is  but  a  lew  days  since  a 
gentleman  said  to  me  "you  Presbyterians  hold  sen- 
timents you  are  ashamed  to  advocate."  And  are  not 
the  other  churches  looking  with  eyes  of  intense  in- 
terest to  this  Synod,  which  may  be  considered  as  a 
standard  body  in  respect  to  matters  of  doctrine,  to 
learn  what  its  decision  will  be  of  the  important  case 
now  submitted  to  it.  l^fuma  clamosa  may  be  trust- 
ed, thirty  thousand  copies  of  this  book  have  already 
been  sent  forth  into  the  world,  and  tliirty  thousand 
more  are  ready  to  follow.  No\y  whether  a  book  thus 
widely  dilTused  contains  truth  is  not  this  Synod  able, 
to  judge?  It  is  no  excuse  whatever  to  say  that  in 
voting  on  this  appeal  1  am  not  passingjudgment  upon 
the  appellee  in  propria  persona,  but  upon  the  book. 
If  Mr.  Barnes  has  not  answered  the  allegations  of 
his  accuser,  whose  lault,  pray,  is  that?  We  surely 
are  not  to  answer  for  that.  Did  not  his  Presbytery 
refuse  us  these  records?  and  if  we  are  left  to  proceed 
without  them  whose  is  the  wrong?  Is  it  not  theirs? 
and  what  may  not  be  tlie  consequence,  if  we  procras- 
tinate a  decision  until  after  the  meeting  of  the  As- 
sembly? Here  are  thirty  thousand  copies  of  the 
book  just  ready  lo  go  into  circulation.  Every  error 
it  may  contain  will  be  widely  spread,  and  those  which 
it  is  the  most  difficult  to  eradicate  may  thus  be  im- 
planted in  the  minds  of  thousands  of  our  children. 
Here  certainly  is  a  most  serious  evil.  It  is  due  not 
merely  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  useful  knowledge, 
but   to  Mr.  Barnes  himself,  that   there  should  be  a 


MR.   BARNES.  173 

decision  ofliis  case.  For  myBcIf  I  have  no  hesitation 
in  condcmiiiiig  tiie  book.  No  hook  ought  to  be  sent 
abroad  into  tlie  world  vvliich  rccjuires  its  author  to 
R'o  alon^  with  it  to  prevent  iiH  beiii^  misunderstood. 
I  believe  tbere  is  not  a  man  here  wlio  with  his  hand 
upon  his  heart  ciin  say  that  the  book  does  not  contain 
vital,  radical  error.  1  am  ready  to  sustain  the  ap- 
peal—  1  am  fully  prepared  now  at  once  to  give  a  final 
and  decided  vote. 

Mr.  Davies. 

I  feel  that  I  am  in  peculiar  circumstances,  and  so 
are  my  iiretJiren  of  the  iSynod.  1  certainly  would  ra- 
ther have  heard  the  views  of  brethren  on  the  otlier 
side,  and  the  defence  ol  the  accused;  but  il  Mr. 
Barnes  chooses  to  let  his  cause  go  by  default,  it  is 
surely  no  fault  of  this  Synod-  I  cannot  relieve  my 
mind  Iroin  the  impression  that  the  party  accused  not 
only  enjoyed  an  opportunity,  but  a  most  abundant, 
unobstructed  opportunity  to  ar°^ue  his  own  cause; 
which  he  did  not  choose  to  embrace.  I  think  that  his 
declining  to  exi)re£s  his  views  has  nothing  to  do  witii 
the  final  judgment  in  the  case.  T  look  at  it  in  view 
of  the  testimony,  and  of  that  alone;  and  I  feel  pre- 
pared to  say  that,  Aviih  one  exception,  (1  refer  to  the 
4th  charge,)  the  charges  have  been  maintained. 
There  seems  some  indistinctness  as  to  the  applica- 
tion of  the  v'ord  principle.  I  cannot  believe  that 
when  the  mind  has  acted,  faith,  all  faith,  is  then  gone 
with  the  action.  1  believe  that  having  once  acted,  it 
will  be  ready  and  disposed  to  act  again — and  this 
dis|)osition  remaining  in  the  mind  I  understand  to 
mean  the  principle  of  faith.  In  this  sense,  certainly 
faith  is  a  principle — yet  there  are  acts  of  faith.  On 
the  whole,  I  feel  clear  in  saying  that  the  charges 
have  been  established. 

Mr.  J.  Patterson,  (an  Elder.) 

I  cannot  helf)  remarking  that  I  have  been  much 
astonisiied  at  the  apologies  we  have  heard  in  most 
instances  for  coming  to  a  conclusion  without  farther 
testimony.  It  must  be  evident  that  we  have  sufficient 
testimony  to  prove  the  facts  alleged  by  the  appellant. 
Of  this  I  think  no  man  w4io  calls  himself  a  Presbyte- 
rian ought  to  feel  a  doubt  upon  his  mind.  I  certainly 
have  none,  whether  this  man  does  or  does  not  hold 
the  faith  and  doctrine  of  our  church  and  of  the  word 
of  God.  And  I  think  it  is  time  our  people  were  awa- 
kened to  their  danger.  I  have  been  astonished  to 
Iiear  reverend  clergymen  on  this  floormake  a  light 
and  indifferent  matter  ©f  the  doctrines  tauoht  to  the 
youth  of  the  church.  The  tact  that  30,000  copies  of 
this  book  are  ready  to  be  sent  forth  to  poison  the  pub- 
lic mind,  shows  it  to  be  high  time  that  the  church 
knew  where  she  is,  and  what  is  threatening  her.  A 
15 


174  TRIAL   OP 

reverend  father  [Mr.  Perkins]  has  told  us  that  he 
has  Ions  heard  these  same  sentiments  maintained  by 
worthy  men  and  eminent  ministers,  and  tlmt  ihere 
is  no  great  ditlerence  between  the  two  systems.  Tliis 
Bounded  strangely  to  me.  It  seemed  very  much  like 
scattering  fire-brands,  arrows  and  death,  and  then 
turning  about  and  asking,  "  Am  I  not  in  sport?"  "  I 
mean  no  harm."  It  is  time  we.  went  forward  to  ar- 
rest these  streams  of  poison  before  they  shall  have 
done  irreparable  injury  ;  and  I  hold  it  to  be  our  en- 
cumbent duty  to  do  so.  I  am  ready  to  sustain  the  ap- 
peal. 

Mr.   KiRKPATRICK. 

I  have  heard  nothing  of  this  book  of  Mr.  Barnes' 
but  what  I  have  heard  since  I  came  into  this  house. 
It  ssems  to  me  to  contain  errors  which  ought  to  be 
suppressed:  but  as  I  have  not  read  the  book,  lam 
not  prepared  to  pronounce  upon  it.  I  am  not  there- 
fore ready  to  vote  one  way  or  the  other. 

Mr.  Penny. 
I  think  the  charges  have  been  fully  and  honorably 
sustained. 

Dr,  J.  Breckinridge. 
I  have  endeavored  in  the  spirit  of  candor  and  of 
justice,  and,  as  I  hope,  in  something  ol"  the  spirit  of 
prayer,  to  look  at  this  proceeding  in  all  its  successive 
stages  :  and  you  are  aware  that  from  the  beginning 
I  have  been  (save  on  questions  of  mere  order)  for  the 
most  part,  a  silent  spectator.  I  feel  that  it  is  a  solemn 
and  most  impressive  occasion.  1  have  been  desirous 
that  those  older  and  wiser  than  myself  should  take 
the  lead  in  bringing  it  to  its  appropriate  issue.  It  is 
a  discussion  unavoidably  connected  with  many  evils, 
and  one  whose  results  cannot  fail  to  atl'ect,  to  a  very 
serious  extent,  not  only  our  own  religious  connection, 
but  the  cause  of  truth  and  godliness  throughout  our 
whole  country.  We  are  approaching  an  issue  of 
great  solemnity,  and  while  I  look  upon  the  difficulties 
and  dangers  which  surround  our  path  on  either  hand, 
I  conless  that  my  own  mind  feels  exceedingly  em- 
barrassed. In  such  circumstances  it  becomes  me  to 
speak  to  you  my  heart  with  great  freedom.  How- 
ever I  may  be  conscious  of  the  difficulties  of  our  situ- 
ation, still  1  am  for  the  Synod's  doin^j  its  duly,  what- 
ever that  shall  be  adjudged  to  be,  with  decision  and 
firmness,  reraenibering  that  the  eye  ol  the  nation, 
of  the  whole  church,  and  of  the  church's  Head,  are 
fixed  upon  us.  Let  us  first  do  rigiit :  and  then  let  us 
aim  to  do  it  wisely  and  well.  As  I  said,  I  feel  bound, 
on  this  occasion,  to  use  some  freedom  in  the  train  of 
my  remarks;  I  shall  endeavor  to  be  brief,  but  very 
frank  and  undisguised  in  what  I  have  to  say. 
The  first  point  which  presents  itself  is  the  way  in 


MR.    BARNES.  175 

which  wc  have  been  broiii^ht  into  our  present  posi- 
tion. Tiie  drafter  of  that  resolution  of  the  General 
Assembly  which  unitey  the  two  Synods  into  one,  was 
together  witli  myself  a  member  of  tliat  body  when  it 
last  met  at  Pittsburgh.  The  Assembly,  on  that  oc- 
casion, was,  as  we  must  all  remember,  in  the  full 
tide  of  Old  School  principles  and  inHuences  (be  they 
right  or  wrong)  and  one  of  the  measures  which  grew 
out  of  these  was  expected  to  have  a  direct  and  im- 
portant bearing  on  the  Assembly's  Second  Presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia.  As  soon  as  it  became  known 
that  the  advocates  of  Old  School  views  had  a  rna- 
jority  of  two  thirds  in  that  body,  and  were  therefore 
able  to  do  just  what  we  pleased  with  regard  to  that 
Presbytery,  Dr.  Ely,  a  leading  member  of  it,  came 
forward  with  an  overture  of  peace.  Those  who  were 
present  on  that  occasion  will  not  soon  forget  the 
emotion  of  general  joy  wi'.h  which  the  proposal  was 
received  by  the  Assembly.  Smiles  of  mutual  con- 
gratulation were  to  be  seen  on  every  face,  and  many 
tears  evinced  the  depth  of  feeling  which  was  called 
up  by  the  prospect  of  having  the  breaches  of  our 
Zion  healed.  The  Assembly  had  just  settled  some 
of  the  fundamental  principles  in  our  system  of  faith  and 
order,  and  had  re-enacted  others  before  decided  on, 
when  this  overture  from  the  skilful  pen  of  the  brother 
I  referred  to  made  its  appearance.  Dr.  Miller,  act- 
ing on  behalf  of  the  majority,  signified  their  willing- 
ness to  accept  of  the  proposed  arrangement,  with  a 
single  word  of  qualification,  to  which  no  objection 
was  made.  The  resolution  was  re  ceived  on  the  vui- 
derstanding,  bona  fide,  that  to  this  Synod,  constitu- 
ted as  proposed,  was  to  be  remanded  the  adjustment 
of  all  existing  difficulties  in  and  about  the  citv  of 
Philadelphia.  I  presume  there  wns  not  a  man  then 
in  the  House,  who  had  not  this  impression  as  to  its 
design  and  expected  consequences.  It  was  launched 
upon  us  unanimously,  almost  by  acclamation:  and 
every  man  rejoiced  that  when  this  Synod  should 
meet,  it  was  to  make  a  final  settlement  of  all  these 
long  disputed  matters.  This  was  taken  for  granted. 
The  brethren  of  that  Presbytery  knew  it.  Heaven 
knew  it.  It  was  not  a  mere  technical  order  but  an 
understood  thing  in  which  all  acquiesced,  and  the 
arrangement  was  a  measure  which  added  honor  to  the 
name  of  a  Judicatory  representing  one  of  the  greatest 
religious  bodies  at  this  day  upon  earth.  And  it  is  be- 
cause I  am  persuaded  that  such  was  the  view  taken 
of  this  resolution,  at  the  time,  that  I  now  believe  the 
course  adopted  by  the  Second  Presbytery  will  stamp 
upon  it  the  indellible  stain  of  departure  from  a  bond 
of  honor  mutually  pledged  on  that  illustrious  and 
memorable  occasion.  Yet  in  looking  at  the  terms  of 
the  resolution  by  which  the  two  Synods  were  to  be 


176  TRIAL    OF 

mailc  one,  it  appears  that  there  is  a  (-haeni,  an  ab- 
scess, in  its  provisions,  occa.<;ioned  by  tiie  introduc- 
tion oftiie  little  word  "at."  And,  as  it  pcenis,  we  are 
to  be  deleatcd  and  exposed  to  public  censure  in  con- 
eoquencc  ot"  tiiis  hip.sus  in  the  leciuiicaid  ol'  legisla- 
tion. As  we  are  to  have  ail  the  world  condemn  us  on 
account  of  a  mutter  ihat  turns  upon  the  pivot  ol  one 
little  word,  it  is  proper  that  1  should  explain. 

When  this  Synod  met,  it  was  the  soiieral  iniprre- 
sion  thai  the  Presbytery  I'rom  whose  sentence  Dr. 
Junlun  had  appealed,  wa?  desirous  that  Synod  should 
lake  up  I  he  ai)poal  and  try  brother  Barnes.  Thai.  1 
know,  was  the  distimt  understanding  ol' some  ol"  our 
old  school  brethren  when  they  came  here.  For  my- 
self, I  w\as  unwilling  that  this  body  should  touch  the 
case.  I  thouj^ht  the  genera!  impression  abroad  would 
be,  that  we  were  noi  suMicienlly  iiiiiiartial  to  give  an 
unbiassed  sentence  ;  and  I  wished  the  whole  matter 
referred  to  the  Assembly:  but  Synod  determined 
otherwise,  ami  1  bowed  to  its  will.  TJie  members  of 
thy  2d  Presbytery,  however,  finding  that  this  Synod 
was  determined  ui)on  dissolving  their  ecclesiastical  ex- 
istence as  a  Presl)ytery,  resolved  to  refuse  our  juris- 
diction over  the  case.  1  believe  myself,  and  1  jtrcsume 
the  fact  is  susceptible  of  proof,  tliat  that  resolution 
was  here  taken  for  the  JirsL  time.  Mr.  Barnes,  it* 
seems,  was  ready  to  go  to  trial;  but  as  soon  as  the 
Presbytery  discovered  its  danger,  tlien,  and  not  till 
then,  was  this  abscess,  this  chasm,  this  omission  in 
the  act  o{'  the  Assembly  discovered  !  and  in  conse- 
quence of  so  notable  a  discovery,  the  records  of  the 
Presbytery  were  withheld  from  our  supervision. 
Such  is  tiie  state  of  facts:  and  all  these  circumstan- 
ces certainly  condiine  to  render  the  case  very  peculiar 
in  its  character,  as  well  as  a  ease  of  great  moment  to 
the  church. 

I  aj)i)rehend  that  men  of  the  world,  and  even  very 
many  members  of  thecliurch  also,  can  never  be  per-r 
suaded  but  that  there  has  been,  throughout  this 
Avhole  proceeding,  a  species  ol  trick  and  management 
utterly  unworthy  of  the  parties  concerned.  The 
stroke  of  policy  intended  seems  to  be  to  obtain  a  set- 
oil' against  the  loss  of  influence  on  the  part  ol  the 
Presbytery,  by  Qccaj'ioniiig  a  real  or  supposed  irregu- 
larity on  the  part  of  those  who  were  disposed  to  press 
the  trial.  Having  arrived  at  this  point  in  our  pro- 
ceedings, the  sentiment  pressed  itself  with  weight 
upon  my  heart,  that  something  was  due  to  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  we  (ind  ourselves :  engaged  as 
we  are  in  the  trial  of  such  a  man  as  this,  with  all 
these  embarrassment-s  in  our  way  ;  and  I  felt  afraid 
to  advance  lest  we  might  take  some  false  step,  on 
account  of  which  the  whole  case  might  be  remanded 
b/  the  Assembly,  and  another  year  of  temjxcsi  ^n<\ 


t' 


MR.   BARNES.  177 

commotion  mi^ht  thus  be  thrown  upon  our  church. 
Under  this  impression  I  thouf^ht  it  best,  still,  to  refer 
the  case:  my  promptings  were  all  in  that  directioH  : 
but  on  pressing  the  measure,  I  found  the  majority 
here  not  disposed  to  pursue  that  course.  We  have 
therefore  to  issue  the  case. 

The  book  of  brother  Barnes  is  pledged  by  the  ap- 
pellant as  the  sole  basis  of  the  trial.  The  erasures 
and  emendations  which  the  author,  by  his  own  shew- 
ing, has  made  in  the  last  edition  of  his  works,  amount 
to  a  confession  that  it  did  contain  some  errors,  and 
that  the  discussion  it  has  excited  lias  done  it  good. 
We  have  this  book  before  us:  but  the  party  in  de- 
fence is  absent  by  his  own  choice.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, our  clear  course,  in  my  judgment,  would 
be,  to  punish  for  contumacy  those  who  withhold  from 
us  the  Presbyterial  records  as  well  as  him  also  who 
has  refused  to  appear  and  answer.  Here,  however, 
is  the  book:  and  its  author  is  one  of  the  most  con- 
spicuous ministers  in  the  church,  not  only  made  so 
by  the  circumstances  of  this  trial,  and  by  the  metro- 
politan station  of  his  church,  but  so  intrinsically,  from 
lis  talents  and  the  loveliness  of  his  personal  charac- 
ter. The  book  and  (he  man  are  both  conspicuous. 
Ifthe  work  is  g'ood,  its  influence  cannot  but  be  high- 
ly valuable:  il  evil,  it  is  as  important  that  the  evil 
should  be  known,  and  as  far  as  possible  arrested.  Its 
author  is  a  man  of  sense,  and  the  views  he  has  adopt- 
ed are  by  far  too  vital  in  their  nature,  to  render  it 
probable  that  there  have  been  any  essential  changes 
in  his  statements;  indeed,  lie  has  avowed  the  fact, 
that  he  has  made  no  alteration  in  his  book,  as  to  the 
doctrine,  but  merely  as  to  the  words  in  which  it  is 
conveyed.  Now,  while  "the  end  of  the  command- 
ment IS  charity,"  it  is  also  written  that  "  charity  re- 
joiceth  in  the  truth."  While  we  regard  the  one 
principle,  we  may  not  forget  the  other. 

A  brother,  (Mr.  Adair,)  in  delivering  his  opinion 
on  the  case,  took  occasion  to  quote  a  nook  which  is 
justly  eminent  in  the  church,  li-oin  which  he  read  us 
several  extracts  ;  but  it  did  amaze  me  to  hear  such  a 
book  used  for  such  a  purpose  as  that  by  which  the 
brother  applied  it.  He  quoted  it  as  exhibiting  the 
views  of  the  theological  proles?ors  at  Princeton.  I 
will  take  the  liberty  of  reading  from  the  same  wprk, 
that  I  may  show  what  Princeton  really  thinks  of  the 
book  before  us.  She  has  deservedly  great  influence 
here,  and  it  ought  not  to  be  perverted.  The  writer  in 
the  Repertory  has  erected  a  pillar  of  light  that  streamsf 
its  rays  upon  the  darkness  and  confusion,  the  errors 
and  contradictions  that  prevail  throughout  this  work. 
The  very  section  from  which  the  brother  quoted,  is 
entitled  "The  contradictions"  of  Mr.  Barnes'  book. 
15* 


179  TRIAL   OF 

Now  when  a  writer  palpably  contradicts  liimself,  arr> 
we  to  pay  tlmt  all  liie  erroneous  pans  ol'  his  book 
eliali  be  overlooked,  and  ihose  alone  wlii<',h  are  olher- 
ivise  insisted  on?  But  let  us  hear  this  authority  on 
whidi  the  brother  relies. 

There  is  anoiher  vimv  of  this  matter  in  which  it  assumes  a 
graver  aspect.  Mr.  15.  has  publicly  and  solemnly  assented  lo 
the  truth  of  an  existinij  "  system  of  doctrine."  It  must, 
therefore,  be  to  mnny  an  offi;nsivc  declaration,  that  lie  docs 
not  caie  whether  what  he  teaches  falls  within  or  wiihout  the 
pale  of  that  system.  They  understand  it  as  meaning,  that 
he  does  not  care  whether  he  really  believes  what  he  has  so- 
lemnly professed  to  believe.  Tiiis  wo  do  not  suppose  to  be 
the  sense  in  which  he  makes  the  declaration  ;  and  yet  thi^\ 
without  perversion,  is  a  sense  which  his  words  may  well 
convey. 

But  our  standards  say,  "  the  ^uilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,"  i.  e. 
exposure  to  punishment  on  that  account  has  come  on  all 
men  ;  and  it  is  customary  also  to  say  that  the  blessed  Sa- 
vior took  upon  him  the  gudt  of  our  sins.  These  are  points 
which  j\lr.  B.  denies;  and  he  makes  the  first  to  teach  absur- 
dity, and  the  second  blasphemy,  by  making  the  word  guill 
to  involve  the  idea  of  pergonal  dement.  He  does  not  speak 
merely  of  what  c  tight  in  his  judgment  to  be  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  or  that  it  is  an  infelicity  or  inaccuracy  to  use  it  as 
it  is  done  in  the  catechism  of  the  church,  but  ho  maintains 
such  is  its  meaning,  it  aliccnjs  is  si  used  and  jurer  expresses 
mere  exposure  to  puni.'hiiiLiit  witiiout  tiip  idi  a  of  personal 
ill-desert.  And  accordingly  he  asserts  that  "  the  doctrine  of 
imputation  has  been  that  infants  are  personally  guilty  of 
Adatn's  sin."  And  if  this  doctrine  is  true,  he  says,  "  then 
they  sinned  the  very  idcniical  sin"  tliat  Adam  did.  This  is 
in  a  book  di&igncd  fi^r  passive  recipients  of  knowledge;  to 
circulate  among  Bible  clashes  and  Sunday  schools;  to  make 
every  huninn  being  who  bLdicvos  iis  statements,  regard  the 
standa'ds  of  the  church,  and  all  the  v,rviiin<;s  of  the  reformers 
as  teaching  unheard  of  folly  and  wicked  blasphemy  ! 

This  is  all  very  good,  but  he  immediately  turns  the  whole 
matter  round,  when  he  proceeds,  "It  expresses  a  state  of 
mind  which  is  demonstrative  of  love  to  God;  of  all'cctioii  for 
his  cause  and  character;  of  rtconciliation  and  Iritndship ; 
and  is  THERi^FOnE  that  state  to  which  he  has  been  gr.'icionsly 
pleased  to  pioinisw  pardon  and  a  ceptance."  This  gives  a 
sadly  erroneous  view  of  the  relation  of  faith  to  jusiificaiion. 

This  unfortunate  and  crronceus  view  of  the  subject,  Mr. 
B.  repeatedly  presents. 

'  We  are  sorry  to  have  to  remaik  on  the  low  view  wliich 
Mr.  B.  takes  of  the  iil)ject  of  Atiiaham's  faith. 

P.  103.  He  thus  tnakes  the  main  point  of  the  prrmjse  to 
Abraham  to  be,  that  his  postLtiiy  should  be  very  numerous. 
It  is,  however,  to  be  remeinhen  d,  that  it  was  txprtssly  de- 
clared to  the  patriarch,  thai  in  liirn,  or  in  his  seed,  nil  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.    This  declaration  wc 


MR.    HAUNES.  179 

know  from  Paul's  own  explicit  aiatenie'it,  iiic'ulecl  the  pro- 
mise of  Christ;  he  was  the  sceJ  in  whom  all  uaiioiis  were  to 
be  blessed. 

Mr.  B.  insists  that  Adam  was  not  the  repirsentalive  and 
federal  head  of  his  race.  "  The  words  rcprcscalalive  and 
federal  licad  arc  never  applied  to  Adam  in  the  Bihle.  The 
reason  is,  that  llio  word  reprcsenlative  implies  an  idea  which 
could  not  exist  in  the  case — the  consent  0/  Ikus^  who  arc  rqirc- 
n^nled.''     p.  121.     This  is  new  to  us. 

The  grand  qtiesiion  was  whether  men  are  justified  by  inhe- 
rent, or  by  imputed  ri.qhtcousness.  This  is  tlie  doctrine  which 
even  Fuller,  as  (jjioted  by  Dr.  Wilson,  says. if  he  rejected,  ho 
"  should  be  at  a  loss  for  ground  on  which  to  rest  Ins  salva- 
tion." Vet  this  is  jhe  doctrine  which  Mr.  B.  in  words  expli- 
citly rejects.  We  say  in  words,  because  he  hiuisi  If  teaches  it 
in  the  passages  just  cjuoted,  and  in  many  others  in  the  course 
of  his  book.  Ho  olten  says,  that  works  or  personal  obedi- 
ence is  not  the  ground  of  our  a-icepiance ;  th  it  faith  is  not,  it 
is  only  the  iiisirumental  cause,  ch.  iii.  3J.  "Jhal  it  is  by  the 
obedience  of  Christ  that  we  become,  or  are  coiuidercd  right- 
eous, &,c. 

As  the  book  now  stands,  it  must  give  great  andimnecis- 
savy  offence,  because  it  abounds  with  the  most  coi:fident  :.s- 
seriions  at  vsriance  with  the  standards  of  the  church,  on  ail 
■  the  vitally  important  subjects  mentioned  above. 

In  the  conclusion  of  this  article  we  Leg  our  readers  to  bear 
in  mind,  tliai  our  reviuw  is  not  of  ati  aggressive  character. 
The  Ipook  which  we  have  been  examining,  coniains  a  violent, 
and,  as  w«  must  think,  gratuitous  utlack  upon  some  of  the 
most  imporiaiu  doctrines  of  the  church.  If  there  be  there- 
fore, an  offensive  and  defenrive  altitude,  in  relation  to  ihis 
subject,  we  certainly  are  in  the  latter.  *  ♦  *  Instead  of 
simply  stating  and  defending  hi?  own  viev,'=,  he  frequently 
and  at  length  attacks  those  of  the  Confession  of  Faiih.  Ho 
goes  out  of  his  way  repeatedly  for  this  very  purpose  ;  intro- 
ducing the  0  topics  vvhcre  the  passage  on  wliich  he  comments 
gives  not  even  a  itlausible  pretext  for  so  doinj{.  That  ihos-e 
who  love  and  revere  these  doctrm-s  as. the  sacred  tiuth  of 
God,  ai;d  as  intimately  associated  with  the  spiritual  and  eiei- 
nal  interests  of  thenibelves  and  their  fellow  men,  should  ftei 
anxious  to  show  that  the  interpretations  on  which  his  (jbjec- 
lions  rest  are  incorrect;  that  the  doctrines  themselves,  being 
misapprehended  by  the  author,  are  misrepresented,  caa  be  to 
no  man  a  matter  of  surprise. 

Now,  sir,  is  it  post^ihte  that  any  man  in  liis  senses 
can  believe  that  tlie  Repertory  is  in  any  sense  the 
advoo.ilc  or  apologii^t  of  Air.  Uarnes'  errors  ? 

Tnesj  are  a  l".'iv  of  the  illu.-trations  given  by  tlie 
writer  in  the  lltportory,  and  ihsy  will  serve  to  show 
what  a  1  extruonlinary  use  has  been  inade  o{  that 
work  by  the  brother  wlio  introductd  ii  litre.  But  I 
return.  The  book  upon  the  Runians  is  iiseii'lhe  evi- 
dence on  which  we  are  to  proceed.    But  the  appellee 


jBO  TRIAL    OF 

is  absent :  and  in  view  of  the  contumacy  which  ha« 
deprived  us  ofthe  Preshytenul  records,  and  has  occa- 
sioned the  absence  ol  the  accused,  I  tliiidt,  il  we  could 
in   any  stage  of  (he  jiroceedine:  have  rel'erred    the 
case  lo  the  Assembly,  it  would   have  been  the  wisir 
course.     Tlic  book,  lo'^eiher  with  much  tliat  is  valu- 
able and   intereslinjf,  contains,  in  my  apprehension, 
iaiolded  wiUi  this,  many  dangerous  and   destructive 
errors.    At   tiie  same  time  I  beUeve   the  author   to 
be  a  man  of  God :  but  tiiere  are   many   wlio   may 
adopt  liis  errors    without  Jiis  i)ersjnal    |)iety,   and 
may  perish  in  them.    Yet,   as  the  man  is  not  pre- 
sent, and  has  not  been  heard,  I  do  feel  an  extreme 
reluctance  as^ainst   the  inliiciion  of  any  penal  stu- 
tence.    Now  brethren,  I  have  told  you  all  my  heart. 
1  agree  with  those   who   are   against  the  book;  but 
while  I  concur  in  liieir  views  of  its  dangerous  ten- 
dency, I  am  in  favor  of  a  second  step,  and  desire 
that  the  case  should  now  be  sent  up  to  the  Assembly. 
1  may,  jierhajjs,  with  a  lew  others  here,  be  charged 
with  making  a  speech  on  both  sides  ol  the  question  : 
but  that  1  disregard.    1  am  prepared  to  say  that  the 
evidence  before  us  is  sufficient  to  convict  the  author 
of  ihis  bojk  ol  i>romulgating  deeply  dangerous  senii- 
inents.   1  agree,  however,  with  some  who  have  ob- 
served, that  there  is  more  want  of  logic  than  want  of 
truth  in  the  distinctions  he  has  taken  on  the  subject 
of  fiith.    In  a  v/ord,  1  thmk  that  we  have  the  facts  of 
the  case,  hut  that  the  form  is  wanting:  for  thougii 
the  paper  which  has  been  read   v.ere  authenticated 
by  an  angel  Irom  heaven,  still  it  is  not  that  otiicial 
]>roof  which  tlie  constitutition  rctpiires:  and  the  re- 
ception of  it  has  been  eHectually  guarded  against,  by 
the  appeal  of  the  accused  lo  the  highest  judicatory 
of  the  church. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge. 
I  do  not  intend  to  do  more  than  give  the  heads  o( 
some  of  those  reasons  which  will  influence  my  con- 
duct in  the  case  before  us.  Out  of  the  multilarious 
oH'ences  committed  in  the  world  against  the  laws  of 
society,  1  do  not  i-uppo.'-e  that  one  in  a  thousand  is 
ever  so  much  as  atienipted  lo  be  brought  to  trial  or 
punishment.  C'ertainly  there  arc  many  thousands 
vl'  delinquencies  pcrjutrattd,  v/liose  authors  never 
are  tried  for  thtm.  In  the  next  i>lace,  out  of  those 
who  are  tried,  not  one  in  a  ,-,rcat  proportion  is  ever 
found  guilty.  Eeyund  all  question  there  are  ninety- 
nine  guiliy  persons  who  escape  for  one  innocent  per- 
son who  is  punished.  For  my  own  part,  1  never  saw 
but  one  person  sullcr  more  than,  from  the  testimony 
in  his  trial,  I  was  convinced  he  deserved.  In  ninety- 
nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred  the  decisions  in  all  our 
courts  lean  to  the  side  of  mercy.  This  being  so,  in 
general,  under  the  laws  of  civil  society,  where  men 


MK.    BARNES.  ISl 

3\re  under  restraints  which  tlicy  do  not  like,  and  con- 
trolled hy  principles  they  do  not  iipprove,  and  are 
bound,  in  some  decree,  to  sul)niit  to  laws  to  which 
they  never  yielded  their  assent,  how  infinitely  remov- 
ed li'om  every  thin;?  like  iiersecution,  iVoin  all  possi- 
hlc  allegation  of  severity  nuist  the  |)ref--ent  prosecu^ 
lion  1)0  admitted  to  he?  li'  we  look  nt  the  vows  the 
appellee  voluntarily  assumed,  and  which  he  lias  ut- 
terly hroken;  when  we  remember  that  when  he 
niisht  have  been  a  Methodist,  he  chose  voluntarily 
to  be  a  Presbyterian,  and  that  every  emotion  ol  hon- 
or and  every  prinii))le  ol"  truth  bound  him  either  to 
be  a  Presbyterian  or  not  to  t;ay  he  was  one:  when 
we  then  lock  at  the  extraordinary  attempts  to  keep 
ort'ailecision  of  his  cause,  attempts  made  as  well  in 
liie  public  journals  as  in  our  church  courts,  with 
what  face  can  the  accusation  of  unfair  and  oppressive 
dealing  be  brou<z:ht  ajsainst  us  1  When  the  Act  and 
Testimony  had  been  eif^ned  by  2, GOO  menibers,  and 
members  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  there  were 
some  who  still  believed  (liat  that  paper  stated  a  case 
which  had  no  existence,  and  iluu  its  authors  were  no 
better  tkan  slanderers.  We  were  then  challenged  to 
produce  a  case  in  whiih  the  errors  of  which  it  spoke 
were  held  by  any  minister  in  our  connection.  And 
now,  Avhen  we  produce  a  case,  need  I  say  Avhat 
amazing  departures  from  acknowledged  duty  are  re- 
sorted to?  vvhai  attempts  are  made  to  brow- beat  this 
Synod  out  of  the  present  prosecution;  so  that  the 
very  throne  of  grace  itself  has  not  been  held  too  sa- 
cred to  be  converted  into  a  vehicle  of  attack?  Let  us 
hear  no  more  of  men  who  keep  their  promise  to  our 
ear,  but  break  it  to  our  trust ;  and  who,  when  called 
to  account,  resort  to  me  ;  's  like  these  to  evade  the 
just  consequences  of  their  conduct,  being  objects  of 
persecution!  Persecution?  If  ever  a  uinn  was  dealt 
by  with  tenderness,  that  man  is  the  accused  in  this 
cause.  Praised  by  his  accuser:  praised  by  his  re- 
vieiver:  praised  by  every  body.  Why,  sir,  I  would 
almost  constant  to  endure  the  trial  myself  to  get  the. 
praises  which  have  been  lavished  on  this  victim  of 
persecution.  Never  was  an  accusation  farther  from 
the  truth. 

And  what  are  the  doctrines,  for  the  promulgation 
of  which  he  1ms  been  called  to  answer?  That  they 
embrace  the  very  worst  kind  of  heresy  none  can  de- 
ny. None  can  question  that  the  cliarges,  as  set  forth 
by  the  appellant,  do  embrace  radical  heresy.  One 
brother  may  say  that  some  one  particular  point  is  not 
very  impqrfani,  and  another  that  some  other  one  has 
not  been  fully  proved  ;  but  that  the  sum  of  the  char- 
ges, taken  as  a  vvliole,  does  make  out  a  regular  sys- 
it  in  of  heresy  is  not  to  be  denied.  In  my  judgment, 
these  dactrines  do  make  up  a  system  fandamentally 


1S2  TRIAL   OF 

at  war  wiih  thfi  gospel  of  God.  They  are  directly 
against  I  he  nature  of  sin  and  (he  nature  ot'failli  and 
ol  repentance:  and  1  cainot,  tor  my  part,  conceive 
how  such  sentiments  can  possibly  be  held  by  a  con- 
verted man.  1  am  wliolly  unaiile  to  conceive  how 
eucli  a  person  can  be  a  child  ol"  God. 

Mr.  Pi:kklns.    Is  such  language  in  order? 

Mr.  B.  I  said  it  not  as  a  rellection  on  Mr.  Barnes, 
but  to  show  my  deep  conviction  of  the  dangerous 
error  he  has  taught.  I  believe  his  book  contains  the 
identical  system  ofdoctrincs  described  in  the  Act  and 
Testimony,  it  is  the  same  as  tlie  Assembly  denounc- 
ed as  a  pestiferous  heresy.  1  believe  itlobeSenii- 
Pelagiariism.  He  denies  a  sinner's  justification  by 
the  imputation  of  Ghrist'e  righteousness:  that  bless- 
ed truth  which  was  the  great  discovery  of  the  Re- 
formation :  which  is  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  which  once  taken  away,  the  system  oj 
the  Catholics  is  (ruer  than  what  is  left.  1  say  this 
in  the  midst  of  a  body  in  which  my  hatred  to  Catho- 
licity is  well  known,  in  order  that  it  may  be  equally 
known  in  what  light  I  view  the  doctrine  of  this  sys- 
te.Ti. 

That  this  system  ol  doctrine  is  held  by  Mr.  Barnes 
I  for  one  do  believe.  The  proof  you  have  heard.  The 
naked  language  of  our  standards  does  ol  itsell  prove 
the  charges  to  be  true.  1  believe  them  to  be  true,  as 
I  shall  answer  it  in  the  day  of  judgment,  and  I  make 
the  declaraiion  here  in  my  place,  on  my  responsibili- 
ty, as  a  christian  minister.  The  question  is  plainly 
before  us,  and  each  man  will  say  yea  or  nay,  as  his 
own  conscience  dictates.  1  ofler  no  argument  in  sup- 
port of  the  charges. 

Bui  there  are  one  or  i wo  points  of  a  collateral 
kind,  on  which  I  shall  say  a  few  words.  An  excep- 
tion is  taken  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  body.  Now  if 
ever  a  point  Avas  rh;ar,  this  is  of  all  tribunals  the 
most  legitimate.  We  are  the  court  of  the  next  re- 
sort: the  next  court  above  that  appealed  from.  The 
duty  has  been  laid  upon  us  by  a  higher  authority. 
According  to  my  most  sincere  belief,  the  plea  is  not 
only  futile  but  childisii.  Where  is  the  constitutional 
objection?  We  have  said  we  would  proceed  upon  the 
best  proof  we  can  get,  in  the  place  ol  that  which  has 
been  suppressed  with  the  approbation  ol  the  accused. 
1  say  it  was  suppressed  with  his  approbation,  for  he 
said  in  our  presence  that  in  the  case  of  another  he 
should  have  done  the  same  thing  his  Presbytery  had 
done  in  this.  All  we  have  left  is  the  next  best  testi- 
mony. It  is  said  we  have  no  jurisdiction:  but  wiien 
lie  came  before  us  ready  lor  trial,  then  it  seems  we 
had  jurisdiction  enough:  what  took  it  away  after- 
wards? It  is  said  again  that  we,  have  not  all  the  proof 
before  us.    1  say  we  have  all  the  proof,  and  that  ac- 


MF.   BARNES. 


183 


cording  to  the  nicest  technicality  of  law.     We  have  ^^^^_ 

the  very  dociinient   whicii  liio  Presbytery  liad.i^AU     h  •JL   l-ylA 
has  l)ei;ii  read  bclbre  Ub  which  wa?;  read  before  llVem.  ^    '■  (^'     ' 
This  is  adiiiitied  by  all.     li"  lliey  had  any  otlier  proof 
before   tiiein  it  was  in  his   book.    11  he  olfered  any 
other,  he  offered  ii  as  exj)lanatory,  or  as  a  pan  of  his 
arg'jnient.    It  was  all  taken  out  of  his  book.    And  I 
am  told  it  is  now  in  this  houe^e.    Certainly  there  was 
no  record  proof  which  is  not  here.    All  lliat  could 
have  been  read  out  of  his  book  is  present  here  now. 
Mr.  Barnes  Jiad  it  in  his  own  hands,  and  as  1  Jiave  no 
doubt  it  was  written  out  at  large.    1  say,  therelore, 
that  it  is  an  uncancHd  alle>;alion  to  aflirm   that  the 
proof  is  absent.    All  the  j)roof  relied  on  by  the  prose- 
cutor is  here.    And  as  to   Mr.  Barnes'  absence,  he 
has  friends  here  as  able  as  himself  to  defend  his  book. 
But  again  :  if  this  absent  proof  were  all  present,  it 
is  improbable  it  should  have  any   weight.    If  a  man 
asserts  a  fact,  and  then  asserts   a  contrary  lact,  he 
has  the  benefit  of  both  so  lar  as  the  one  may  explain 
the  other.    But  in  moral  truths,  or  truths  of  science, 
if  he  directly  contradicts  himself.it  proves  either  that 
his  system  is  involved  in  inextricable  perplexity,  or 
that  the  man  himself  is   either  knave   or  fool.    If  I 
should   say   that   two  and  two  five:  and  then  again 
should  atiirm  that  two  and  two  make  lour,  what  tt- 
fect  would  the  last  have  but  to  show  that  the  firtt 
assertion  had  not  been  made  advisedly  ?  So  it  a  man 
shall  as.*ert  that  God  is  a  tyrant,   and  afterwards 
shall  affirm  that  the  devil  is  a  tyrant  but  God  is  not ; 
it  will  only  show   that  he  knows  not   what  he  Sc>ye, 
nor  whereof  he  afiirms.    There  is  an  immeasurable 
difference  between  facts  and  principles.    Supjiose  a 
man  shall  be  apprehended  liar   a  felon,  is  ii    a  valid 
defence  to  show   that  in   trying  circumstances   the 
man  was  honest  ?   It  may  be  very  good  proof  in  miti- 
gation, or  it  may  show  tJiat  he  has  no   moral  i  rinci- 
ples.  But  once  make  out  the  perj  etration  of  a  n;oral 
delinquency,  and  all  the  proof  of  opposite  conduct  at 
other  times  will  avail  noihing.  So  it  is  idle  to  depend 
on  being  able  to  show,  from  proof  not  now  present, 
that  the  accused  sonieianes  taught  other  doctrines 
which  \vere  not  heretical.  The  christian  ministry  are 
not  called  to  teach  contradictory  uncertainties  touch- 
ing the  salvation  and  damnation  of  men.    We  have 
the  truth  laid  down  categorically  in  our  coi.fession:     - 
and  any  distinct  departure  from  it  is  a  breach  of  our 
ordination  vows.    For  a   man  once  and  again  to  do 
this  deliberately  and   knowingly,  is  to  be  false  to  his 
vow.    Nor  is  it  a  defence  to  say   that  inconsistency 
is  habitual  with  him. 

The  man  who  lontcnds  for  the  production  of  the 
absent  proof  contends  lor  that  whi'h  does  not  exist: 
and  which  if  it  were  hero,  could  bo   of  no  benefit. 


\^i  TRIALOF 

Bin  it,  is  said  the  appellee  is  not  here.  Well ;  ifevcry 
criminal  could  put  a  stop  to  ii'  trial  by  absence,  how 
many  I  pray  would  be  tried  7  Or  il'  they  conid  avoid  a 
Kcntonce  by  Ptandiiii^  mute,  how  many  would  be  con- 
demned? If  by  not  hearin<?  God  the  sinner  could 
avoid  his  jndf^mcnt,  or  by  not  giving  the  least  rccog- 
iiization  of  his  decision  he  could  avoid  its  execution, 
how  many  would  ever  be  sent  to  hell  ?  We  have 
(lone  all  that  in  ilic  circumitances  mortal  men  could 
do.  We  have  cited  him,  and  he  has  pur  in  his  decli- 
nature. A  Brother  says  we  ought  to  have  mercy.  It 
is  very  true:  but  mercy  on  Mr.  Barnes  alone?  Are 
we  to  have  no  mercy  in  the  church  of  Christ?  no 
mercy  on  the  heat^en?  if  this  book  goes  to  our 
missionary  stations  will  it  do  no  harm  ?  It  is  not  the 
gospel  of  Christ  which  says  that  fallen  man  has  abil- 
ity to  do  holy  acts.  It  is  not  the  gospel  which  saya 
that  Adam's  sin  was  not  imputed  to  his  posterity,  nor 
Christ's  righteousness  to  believers.  It  is  not  only 
not  the  gospel,  but  it  is  contrary  to  the  gospel.  If  we 
must;  have  charity,  let  us  show  charity  to  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ.  It"  we  must  have  mercy,  let  us  have 
merry  on  all  the  thousands  who  look  up  to  us  for  the 
light  of  doctrine  and  discipline  ordained  by  God  in 
his  house.  Let  us  show  mercy  to  the  m3n  himself. 
Those  who  v.'ouid  relbse  it  are  his  worst  friends.  It 
is  mercy  to  the  erring  brother  himself. 

On  the  whole.  Moderator,  I  am  ready  now,  to  say 
that  the  appeal  ought  to  be  sustained.  And  I  con- 
Fider  it  as  our  duty,  a  duty  we  owe  to  Christ,  to  the 
world  to  the  church  and  to  the  Appellee  himself, 
mercifully,  but  h'rndy,  temperately  and  manfully,  to 
say  to  him:  "  the  function  of  the  christian  ministry  is 
not  to  be  held  by  a  man  holding  and  teaching  such 
doctrine." 

Here  the  Synod  adjourned  till  to-morrow.  Closed 
wiih  prayer. 

Tuesday  morning. —  Synod  met.  Opened  with 
prayer. 

A  report  was  received  from  the  Treasurer  of 
Synod,  and  referred.  Dr.  Cuyler  from  ihe  commit- 
tee on  the  arrangement  of  Presbyteries  made  a  re- 
port: and  the  question  being  between  adopting  the 
report  and  only  putting  it  on  the  docket, 

Mr.  11.  Biu'CKENiJiDGE  said  he  wished  it  disposed  of 
"ow.  In  all  i)robibility,  said  he,  the  Assembly's 
Second  Presbytery  will  be  annulled,  and  the  Second 
l-'rest)ytcry  Synodical  also.  But  why  do  1  wish  the 
report  disposed  of  now?  Because  if  we  leave  it  till 
the  appeal  of  Dr.  Junkin  is  issued,  it  will  throw  a 
temptation  in  the  way  of  the  Assembly's  Second 
Presbytery  lo  take  an  appeal  with  a  view  to  keeping 
themselves  in  existence  until  that  appeal  shall  be 
decided  on.    But  if  it  is  the  mind  of  Synod  to  refer 


MR.   BARNES.  185 

this  question  bnck  <o  the  Presbytery  for  final  action 
i»i  the  case,  instead  of  ciriharraseinjr,  it  will  disem- 
barrass the  case  to  have  it  r'reviously  settled  to  which 
Presbytery  Mr.  Barnes  is  to  belong. 

Dr.  Mc  DpwELL.  I  do  not  object  to  taking  up  the 
report  now  lor  discussion.  All  I  wish  id  to  go  into  a 
full  discussion  and  consideration  of  the  subject,  and 

five  every  one  a  fair  oppor  tunity  to  express  his  views, 
wish  to  place  mine  betbre  the  Synod.  But  we  have 
another  business  commenced  and  in  a  state  of  pro- 
gress :  it  is  a  case  of  great  interert:  the  appellee  is 
anxious  to  know  our  decision,  yet  notwithstanding 
the  deep  interest  it  excites  I  (ear  if  we  defer  it  we 
shall  have  a  thin  house  by  the  time  we  come  to  the 
vote.  1  want,  whefi  the  subject  of  the  Presbytery 
comes  up, that  we  shall  have  the  entire  arrangement, 
the  whole  field  belbre  us  and  discuss  the  plan  ae  a 
whole. 

Dr.  CuYLER.  Can  we  orderly  go  into  this  matter 
unless  we  first  vote  to  suspend  I  he  trial? 

Mr.  Gilbert.  If  we  dissolve  that  Presbytery  now 
can  you  tiioii  go  on  with  the  trial  at  ail  ?  It  is  an  ap- 
peal from  the  act  of  the  Presbytery. 

Alter  a  desultory  conversation  in  which  Messrs. 
Mc  Calla  McDowell,  Brown  and  Winchester  took 
part  it  wa;:;deci(ied  to  accept  the  report  and  put  it  on 
the  docket  for  future  consideration. 

Dr,  CuYLER  then  niade  three  other  reports  on  the 
same  general  subject,  one  of  them  being  on  the  di- 
vision of  the  Synod,  (the  former  having  divided  into 
four  parts.) 

The  question  being  on  giving  these  reports  the 
same  destination  as  the  first, 

Mr.  R.  Breckenridge  opposed  their  being  received 
at  all.  He  thought  that  in  the  present  alarming' 
crisis,  all  who  were  against  the  Synod's  being  di- 
vided should  refuse  to  accept  any  report  on  that  sub- 
ject. 

Dr.  Mc  DowELL.  Let  us  at  least  hear  the  proposi- 
tion and  consider  it,  and  then  we  may  reject  if  we 
please. 

The  question  being  put.  Synod  was  divided — and 
only  63  rising  in  the  affirmative  the  question  was  lost. 
So  the  report  on  the  division  of  the  Synod  v/as  not 
accepted. 

The  Synod  now  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
appeal. 

Mr.   MUSGRAVE. 

In  order  that  my  future  course  in  relation  to  this 
matter  may  be  understood,  I  will  offer  a  tew  words 
in  explanation  of  my  views  of  it.  1  regret  greatly 
that  we  should  be  obliged  to  act  under  existing  cir- 
cumstances :  but,  with  the  evidence  before  me  which 
16 


186  TRIAL    OP 

I  have  heard  I  am  bound  to  say  that  in  my  judgment 
the  charges  in  general  have  been  established,  and 
that  tlie  appeal  ouj^hl  to  be  sustained.  But  while  I 
say  this,  I  must  also  declare  that  1  do  not  believe, 
after  a  pretty  full  exanunalion  of  his  book,  that 
brother  Barnes  does  entirely  reject  the  doctrines 
whicii  lie  is  accused  of  rejecting.  Although  I  think 
he  is  wrong  to  a  considerable  extent,  lam  not  pie- 
pared  to  pronounce  him  a  heretic:  nor  can  1  accede 
to  his  deposition.  His  errors  are  not  such  as  to  jus- 
tify so  exrreme  a  measure  as  that.  While  therefore 
I  shall  vole  to  sustain  the  appeal,  I  am  not  ready  to 
act  so  far  on  that  ground  as  some  of  my  brethren. 

Mr.  Pheli^s. 
I  entirely  concur  in  a  remark  of  the  Appellant  that 
the  responsibility  of  the  ctiristian  miuisiry  is  I'earfully 
great,  and  I  doubt  not  there  are  many  on  this  floor 
who  have  deeply  felt  that  truth  since  the  present 
trial  commenced.  It  is  one  of  our  severest  trials  to 
behold  a  brother  sull'ering,  and  the  cause  of  truth 
suffering  at  the  same  time.  But,  on  the  question  sus- 
tain or  not  sustain,  1  am  nevertheless  compelled  to 
eay  sustain.  From  the  evidence  laid  before  us  it 
does  appear  that  brotlier  Barnes'  book  conrains  such 
great  deviations  from  the  Conlession  of  our  church 
that  they  ought  to  be  noticed.  II'  1  had  been  in  the 
court  below  and  heard  his  defence  I  might,  perhaps, 
have  voted  dili'erenily,  but  as  things  are,  I  must  sus- 
tain the  appeal.  1  think  that  on  the  whole  subject  of 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  the  proot  is  complete: 
and  on  that  subject  1  suppose  the  Appellee  himself 
will  admit  it  to  be  so.  I  d)  not  consider  the  trial  as 
being  wholly  e.v  parte.  We  have  his  book,  if  we 
have  not  his  voice.  But  it  is  ex  parte  in  this  respect, 
the  testimony  has  not  been  sifted  by  a  man  of  talents 
and  learning:  and  it  there  are  in  the  book  things 
wliich  go  to  mitigate  the  fault  of  the  author  or  weak- 
en the  force  of  the  evidence  they  have  not  been 
stated.  It  is  said,  to  be  sure,  that  we  possess  com- 
mon sense,  and  that  the  book  is  its  own  expositor: 
but  that  is  not  a  good  argument  even  when  applied 
to  the  Bible  itseli';  for  that  holy  book  does  contain 
on  its  surface  many  apparent  conlr;  dictions  in  word 
and  letter  :  all  ministers  know  this,  and  all  cavillers 
try  to  make  the  most  of  it,  and  hence  the  necessity  of 
Bound  and  able  exposition.  Now  it  has  been  said 
here  that  Mr.  Barnes'  book  is  full  of  contradictions  : 
we  have  heard  a  set  of  ex'.racts  on  one  side  but  we 
have  not  heard  any  of  the  opposite  side.  Certainly, 
to  form  a  righteous  judgmeiit  wc  should  have  both 
before  us.  Otherwise  our  decision  will  not  be  sus- 
tained by  an  intelligent  community.  We  know  that 
the  writings  ev  :a  of  the  immortal  Ed  A-ards  admit  of 


MR.   BARNES.  187 

fliflcrent  meanings  being  put  upon  ihem — and  they 
have  been  quoted  hero  to  support  difi'erent  views  of 
the  impiitaiioii  oj'  Adam's  mn — and  if  tliis  is  true  of 
the  works  of  Furii  a  man,  may  it  not  bo  true  of  (he 
works  ofolinTs  also?  So  far  as  tlie  evidence  coneists 
ol  paragraphs  al!  selcc  cd  in  support  of  one  view,  it 
is  certainly  ox  i)ar".e.  I  did  not  procure  the  hook  un- 
til ju^t  hcfoie  !lie  commcncemcni  of  lliis  trial.  I 
liavo  seen  that  of  Professor  Hodije,  which  is  ^really 
eulogized.  Mr.  I3arnes  has  certainly  not  lollowed 
out  tlie  beaulilVil  p,irallel  drawn  by  Paul  between  the 
first  and  the  stM'ond  Atlani:  I  preler  greatly  the  ex- 
jiOf^ition  ol"  Professor  Ilodge  on  I  his  part  of  the 
l'^)isile.  On  ihut  point  1  believe  the  charges  are 
fully  sustained. 

As  to  the  doclrine  that  all  sin  consists  in  actual 
personal  transgression,  the  book  is  not  clear.  I  do 
not  think  on  ihis  point  the  charge  is  I'ully  proven :  if 
it  were,  Mr.  Bariies  would  be  nearer  Pf  higianisni 
than  I  think  lie  is.  As  to  the  extent  of  Adam's 
knowledge  I  have  no  certainty.  It  is  not  revealed  to 
us  in  tiie  Bii)lo  how  much  Adam  knew:  nor  has  the 
appellant  shown  that  this  point  is  of  radical  itnpot;t- 
unce.  Adam  had  the  promise  and  prophecy  of  a 
coming  Messiah,  a;id  so  had  Is.iiah:  yet  neither 
knew  perfociiy  tlie  full  meaning  and  extent  of  the 
proi)hecy:  and  how  can  we  show  that  Adam  knew 
ul!  that  was  reveah-d  in  the  days  of  Paul,  or  v/hen 
the  canon  of  sciiioiurc  had  been  eealtd  and  com- 
pleted ? 

It  is  said  th  It  t!ie  book  teach.es  that  a  sinner  can 
convert  himself:  but  this  is  to  me  not  so  clear.  I 
I  think  some  of  its  expi-essions  have  been  misinler- 
|)reted.  He  has  certainly  eontra-iiicted  such  an  idea 
in  other  parts  .of  his  book  most  explicitly.  Under  the 
passage,  "  It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth  or  of  him  that 
runneth,  hut  ol  God  that  showeth  mercy,"  lie  con- 
tradicts the  idea.  He  there  declares  and  teaches 
that  it  is  tlie  Holy  Spiric  who  makes  the  sinner  wil- 
ling to  repent  and  believe  ;  he  there  eays  tha'  the 
unrenewed  heart  never  will  desire  conversion  till  the 
man  is  eOectually  called  by  the  Spirit.  The  contra- 
diction is  direct,  the  proof  indireci,  and  is  drawn,  as 
1  believe,  from  misinterpretation. 

As  to  the  charge  on  t.lie  mode  and  nature  of  justi- 
fication, I  admit  that  it  touches  a  lundamental  doc- 
trine of  the  Cliristim  system  ;  and  I  cannot  but  ex- 
press my  woadcr  that  the  author  should,  so  iVequent- 
ly,  nay  almost  constantly,  avoid  the  plain  language 
wc  use  on  that  subject.  But  though  he  does  avoid 
this,  yei  lie  says  that  justification  gives  the  sinner  a 
title  to  eternal  lile.  I  could  refer  to  many  peissagea 
which  declare  that  is  only  through  what  Christ  has 
a....-  <u.=,t  "tf>rnal  life  is  obtained,  and  that  justifica- 
tion IS  not  only  pardon. 


188  TRIAL   OF 

It  is  said,  again,  that  he.  holds  faith  to  be  inipute<t 
as  llie  ineritorious  ground  orjustificalion:  buiin  this 
booI<  lie  11)031  distinctly  declares  iliac  "  ii  is  i:ot  the 
meritorious  ground  of  our  salvation-,"  he  Kays  this 
iu  so  luaiiy  wordcs.  H"  lie  held  the  contrary  he  would 
certainly  strike  at  one  of  the  grcai  fundamental  pil- 
lars of  iruth,  ibr  then  a  sinner  would  be  saved  by 
ills  own  works  ;  but  he  emphatically  contradicts  any 
such  idea.  1  will  not  go  over  the  passages.  On  the 
whole,  while  1  do  think  that  the  doctrine  of  the  im- 
putation of  Adam's  sin  is  denied,  and  that  in  this  re- 
spect ibcre  is  an  important  departure  from  our  stand- 
ards, I  do  not  believe  that  the  other  cl. urges  have 
lieen  fully  sustained.  It  was  asserted  that  Mr. 
Barnes  rejects  the  doctrine  that  Christ's  sull'erings 
were  the  proper  penalty  of  the  law  :  but  what  he  de- 
nies is  that  llie  suilerings  of  Christ  were  like  those 
of  the  danu^ed  in  hell.  And  who  leaches  that  they 
■were?  He  opposes  this  on  tiie  ground  that  they 
were  not  tlie  same  in  duration  nor  the  same  in  kind. 
It  has  not  been  shown  that  he  anywhere  denies  the 
great  doctrine  of  Christ's  vicarious  sullering  and 
obedience.  1  have  seen  no  exjireesions  on  that  sub- 
ject wtiich  niay  not  be  understood  as  merely  denying 
a  transfer  of  personal  moral  character  on  this  point- 
I  have  often  wondered  that  brother  Barnes,  and  the 
divines  ci  New  England  seem  not  to  know  that  we 
deny  a  trani-!'';r  of  moral  character  o(  a  sinner.  Mr. 
Barnes  distni.rtly  declares  that  we  are  saved  through 
merits  of  CJirist.  Now  salvation  ihrouirh  the  merits 
of  another  is  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  sullering.  He 
says  that  all  the  glory  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Savior 
alone. 

It  called  upon  to  vote  I  again  say  I  must  sustain 
ihe  appeal.  Any  teacher  who  impugns  the  doctrim; 
of  original  fin  should  be  strongly  di;?api)roved  :  but  I 
do  not  think  that  in  his  book  tlie  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  are  denied.  If  he  had  not  been 
misadvised  by  evil  councillors,  all  might  have  l>een 
tsettled  without  difficulty.  We  have  been  told  that 
in  the  adminLstration  oi  our  ju  'icial  allairs  so  much 
mercy  preponderates  that  ninety -nine  guilty  persons 
are  cleared  to  one  innocent  person  that  is  condemned. 
Now  with  the  same  extent  of  observation  as  the  bro- 
ther who  laid  down  this  t^falement,  1  believe  the  fact 
to  be  very  diti'erent.  1  believe  that  many  innocent 
persons  have  sullered,  and  many  have  been  destroy- 
ed who  were  only  suspected.  1  was  astonished  that 
the  member  should  speak  with  such  force  and  po.-^!- 
tiveness  when  a  case  of  the  veiy  opposite  kind  was 
within  his  own  knowledge.  A  m.-in  whom  rumor  has 
compared  to  Saurin  was  examined,  tried,  and  con- 
demned: that  same  man  alicrward  came  into  the 
Presbyterian  church,  and  so  did  hio  o«uiuiaer ;  ana  \ 


Mil.    BARNES.  189 

trust  both  went  inloheavpn:  and  at  thia  day  it  re- 
quires greiit  acuteness  10  discover  in  what  they  dif- 
J'ered. 

Mr.  R.  BaEcnciNRiDGE.  To  whom  does  the  speaker 
alUide  ? 

Mr.  Phelps.  It  is  not  proper  liere  fo  inention 
names.  'I'lie  volumes  oi  bolli  iheir  works  arc  pre- 
served. I  admil  iliat  putiiy  is  ihe  bond  ol'pcarc,  and 
that  the  wisdom  whicU  comelli  from  uiiove  is  first 
pure,  then  \)(i-Mcnh\v,;  but  il'  we  are  too  rijrorous  in 
insisliii^  on  tumor  ditl'erencts  we  sliall  g^o  coiilt'nding 
down  to  [hit  irravo  1  do  not  pay  how  far  tiicfce  re- 
marks ap;)ly :  but  there  certainly  must  be  mucli  dis- 
cretion in  ih'J  api'lioation  ol'  a  general  principle. 
Wiiilc  I  s  iy  that  j^rear  deviations  Irom  our  t-uuidards 
should  be  noticed  and  censured,  I  do  not  tliink  there 
are  in  this  book  such  as  should  silence  a  christian 
minister. 

Mr.  VVm.  Latta.  Moderator,  I  thought  we  were 
now  delivcrinjr  our  opinions  as  judges,  not  making 
arguments  as  connsel. 

MoDEKAToR.    Dolh  &ide?  have  been  allowed  equal 
hititude  of  remark.     It  would  certainly  bo  desirable  if 
the  brethren  would  observe  greater  brevity  ;  but  it  is 
impossible  Ibr  the  chair  ro  draw  the  line. 
Mr.  Harrison. 

I  am  not  a  little  at  a  loss  to  know  precisely  what  I 
ought  10  say  in  tb.is  case.  1  caaie  here  under  tl.ie  ex- 
pectation thai  il  would  be  reierred  to  the  General 
Assenil)[y,  and  iherel'ore  my  mind  had  not  been  turn- 
ed to  ilie  subject  in  a  degree  commensurate  wiih  its 
importance.  The  reasons  lor  thisexpeclation,  it  is, 
perhaps,  not  qniie  proper  lor  me  to  give.  Nui  liiat  I 
had  heard  thai,  such  was  tiie  design  ol"  S\  nod  ;  nor 
was  it  becaut-e  I  ant.icii)aled  the  very  stranjie  course 
ol"  action  adi)pted  l)y  the  Assembly's  Second  Presby- 
tery in  repressing  tiie  record.  I  call  that  course 
strange,  not  that  I  believe  it  to  have  been  constitu- 
tionally wrong,  but  because  it  was  new  and  wholly 
unexi^-ected.  Nor  wris  it  because  I  held  the  ISynod 
incompetent  to  issue  ihecafc;  on  the  contrary  I  have 
believtd  aiid  do  still  believe  that  they  are.  It  was 
because  I  knew  that  in  tlie  belitf  of  the  world  gene- 
rally, the  Synod  was  considered  as^^  being  prejudiced, 
and  so  mucli  so  as  to  disqualify  them  liom  acting  in 
a  christian  way  on  sucli  an  occasion.  This  is  the 
eimple  truth.  That  there  is  such  a  sentiment  pre- 
vailing must  be  manilesi,  I  presume,  to  all:  and  I 
may  s.iy,  farther,  that  it  is  industriously  circulated. 
It  could  not  otherwise  have  attained  such  an  extent 
or  such  a  force.  I  line!  none  oi"  it  in  the  mimis  of  the 
people  of  this  town.  I  heard  a  minister  say,  since 
1  came  liere,  that  the  S>  nod  liad  come  with  an  appe- 
tite Uke  that  of  a  raging  wolf  determined  on  its  prey. 
16* 


190  TRIAL   OF 

and  resolved  to  glut  ite  Iiunger  at  arvy  cost;  aoit  nstt 
unprejudiced  man  nii^lit  perhaps  believe  lliat  there 
was  some  truth  in  the  sentiment. 

Mr.  McCai.la.    Is  that  orderly  ? 

Mr.  H.  I  did  not  say  lliat  the  brother  staled  thia 
as  fact,  but  merely  as  his  own  impression,  it  so  ap- 
peared to  him.  The  remark  was  not  made  in  the 
house.  I  am  not  prepared  lo  asi^ert  that  we  may  not 
tometimes  act  under  strong;  prepossessiois  without 
bein^  conscious  ol  it.  Who,  alas,  can  onderstiincJ  hia 
errors,  or  can  truly  say  that  he  knows  his  own  heart? 
I  doubi  whether  it  wmdd  not  be  better  that  liie  case 
should  £;o  up  to  the  Assembly,  especially  in  view  of 
these  uii|)ressions.  There  is  certainly  a  general  im- 
pression that  this  Synod  is  not  quitlified,  under  the 
influence  of  a  state  olfeeiine  which  has  lonjr  been  pre- 
valent among  some,  at  least,  of  its  members,  to  issue  ' 
the  matter  imparlialiy.  As  to  the  chaifrcs,  1  do  not 
know  that  I  can  vote  according:  tc  the  evidence  we 
have  had  subnn'lted  to  us.  ItT  am  to  judire  iVom  the 
book,  I  certainly  cannot.  I  have  read  the  book:  and 
80  far  as  I  understand  it.  there  are  clearly  discrepan- 
cies in  it:  so  muci-i  so  as  to  sustain  the  appeal,  tiiken 
as  a  whole.  To  what  extent  these  discrepancies 
amount  to  errors,  I  am  not  now  to  judge.  Whether 
I  i'ully  understand  the  hook  I  cannot  say.  1  believe, 
however,  honesily,  as  1  shall  give  an  account  here- 
after, there  is  something  wrong-  in  it  it  our  standards 
rightly  express  ihe  sense  of  Scripture.  1  am  sorry 
to  .say  this,  because  1  love  the  brother  who  is  accus- 
ed, and  have  had  reason  to  love  him. 

Dr.  Cathcart. 
I  stand,  perhaps,  in  a  singular  situation  on  this  sub- 
ject. 1  came  into  this  house  having  never  read  a 
paj^eor  so  much  as  a  seiU.t.-Dce  of  the  book  that  all 
the  noice  is  about.  I  resorird  lor  my  light  to  the  ap- 
pellant and  the  appellee,  and  more  especially  to  the 
Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  without  hiving 
dared  to  form  an  opinion  of  a)y  own,  because  I  had 
no  materials  on  which  to  form  one.  This  is  truly  my 
situation.  I  did  attend,  as  well  as  I  could,  (for  my 
infirmity  of  hearing  has  been  but  too  obvious  lo  you,) 
to  the  arguments  of  the  appellant :  and  to  n\v  a  ma- 

1'ority  of  them  appeared  greatly  inconclusive.  When 
think  that  this  cause  was  fully  tried  before  a  Pres- 
bytery consisting  of  twenty-one  members;  out  of 
whom  only  three  could  find  any  heresy  in  the  book,  it 
appears  to  be  high  presumption  in  me  to  rise  up 
against  their  judgment.  Of  the  eighteen  members 
■who  acquitted  the  author,  1  am  acquainted  with 
8ome|;  1  have  wintered  them  and  summered  them, 
and  1  know  they  are  lar  superior  to  me.  Their  pie- 
ty never  was  questioned,   and  cannot  be :  it  is  emi- 


MR.   BARNES.  I9L 

ncnt  in  the  churches.  TliCfC  men  ht-nrd  the  vholo 
case,  pro  and  con:  and  f hey  then  voted  lliat  there 
was  no  heresy.  Alter  this  it  would  he  (hirinf?  pre- 
t'umption  in  me,  knowing  no  more  ol'  Uh;  c;i&;e  Ihan  I 
do,  to  say  iIrU  there  was.  All  ihesc  lliiiitr?  make  me 
stand  and  dchhcraie.  I  am  totally  una(()nain(ed  with 
tiie  book,  hut  iVoin  what  I  have  hiard,  I  f-liould  say  it 
was  not  homogeneous.  1  wJjjIi,  iiowcvtr.  iliat  the 
wholi'  cau=;e  Iiad  gone  up  to  the  GeiuTai  Assemhiy. 
1  think  it  would  have  been  more  lor  tlie  interest  of 
relijjion.  We  are  con?idered  by  the  public,  as  a  par- 
tial body:  in  this,  however,  I  have  been  anticipated 
byayounsrer  brother,  (Mr.  H.irrison.) 

As  to  Adam's  knowlediie  1  know  liule  about  it.  I 
know  that  lu;  was  "created  in  knowledge,"  and  that 
he  gave  names  to  all  the  birds  and  beasis  of  the  crea- 
tion: but.  it  is  a  mere  speculation  to  aiti  nipt  to  tell 
liow  much  he  had  o.r  how  much  he  needed.  No  doubt 
he  had  all  that  lie  needed  for  the  ends  and  purposes 
for  which  God  n-iade  him. 

As  tot  he  li! Ill  charge,  if  this  had  happened  twenty- 
years  ago  the  Orthodox  would  have  swid  nothing 
about  it.  It  made  me  shudder  whea  it  was  said  that 
Mr.  Barnes  denied  our  obligation  to  Clirist  for  jus- 
tification by  his  riirhteousness.  It  was  not  said,  how- 
ever, expressly  whether  Mr.  Barnes  held  this.  On 
this  point  he  turned  lawyer,  and  evaded  mentioning 
too  particularly  what  he  meant :  he  (juibbled  a  good 
deal  about  tlie  phraseology.  This  I  deprecate.  1  do 
not  approve  ol  it:  nor  do  I  approve  of  bringing  in 
new  phraseology  into  works  on  divinity,  save  where 
the  meaning  of  words  has  changed  since  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  was  drawn  up.  1  was  born  a  Pres- 
byterian, and  I  expect  to  die  one  ;  none  that  ever  I 
heard  of  denied  my  contorniity  to  the  Confession. 
As  to  Adam's  knowledge  1  think  Mr.  Darnes  denied 
loo  much.  As  to  faith  being  an  act  and  not  a  prin- 
ci])le,  a  man  might  preach  for  twenty  years  and  not 
settle  the  disiinciion  between  an  act  and  a  principle. 
All  depends  upon  the  light  in  which  the  subject  is 
considered.  In  some  respects  it  is,  an  act  ;  in  some  it 
is  a  principle.  When  Christ  said  to  bis  apostles  in 
the  ship,  "  How  is  ii  that  ye  have  no  faith  7"  he  did 
not  mean  to  charge  them  with  being  destitute  of 
saving  faith,  but  with  a  want  ol  the  act  on  that  par- 
ticular nccnsi(m.  The  word  Faith  has  various  mean- 
ings in  Scripture — sometimes  ii  is  the  head  which  a 
dinner  holds  out  to  receive,  sometimes  it  is  an  anchor 
by  which  he  trusts,  and  so  forth. 

As  to  the  point  uf  man's  ability,  I  hearkened  as  well 
as  I  was  able  to  the  Appellant,  and  I  was  certainly 
very  dull  either  of  hearing  or  of  apprehension  ii  he 
produced  the  most  remote  proof  of  the  charge.  If 
there  is  any  heresy  on  this  point  it  mutt  be   Con- 


192  TUIAL   OF 

etruclive  heropj'.  There  was  no  proof.  I  was  pleaped 
wilh  Mr.  ]3;iriit'8'  eX|H)silioM  of  the  miiltct  ;  but  as 
for  the  A|i|)ellaiii  he  \vt:iil  round  about  and  round 
oboul  il  in  a  vory  nii-lapliytical  niannur.  1  hate  all 
nielapliyisii-S.  [a  laui^h.J 

In  re:^ard  to  the  iinpulation  of  fiiih,  the  hook  cer- 
tainly uses  IScriptuiC  lanjiuugc  whaiever  ihe  author 
may  hold.  On  ihe  pa-s^aire  ""The  just  ehiiil  hve  by 
faitli''  Dr.  Junlun  chaiires  Mr.  B.  wiUi  ti-arhinj?  tliat 
it  is  a  nian'-s  f.ulh  winch  ju.-iilit  s  Jiini :  but  the  apofclle 
is  not  sp^jakiiiij  Hl)Out  jus'ilicaiion,  but  aliout  aposla- 
cy,  and  the  just  man's  lioldnijjon  in  iiis  lailli  to  eter- 
nal life  and  not  laihi;^:  away  to  jierdition.  Neither 
Scott  nor  Gill  nor  Poulc  say  that  liie  passage  relates 
to  justilicarion. 

1  am  sorry  Mr.  Barnes  everiindertook  to  write  on 

the  Rjmaiis  at  all.     'i'o  write  an  able  conimcntaiy 

on  that  episile  requires  the  study  of  hit y  years  and 

\*--ilie  intellect  of  a   Locke:    and   even   Locke  lailed 

^  Cirregiouslv.     lli.s  Paiajjlirase  on  the  Gosjx  Is  is  cx- 

ce'lcnl.    It  did  him  j^reai  credit  at  d  the  chinch  much 

fj  )od.  It  is  printeJ  and  |  raided  in  Euro|^e.  But  there 
le  should  have  stojjpfd.  I  know  the  diliicultics  of 
the  ilomantf:  I  have  lectured  on  every  part  of  lh& 
ei)istle,  and  on  a  part  of  it  the  second  lime.  Out  of 
many  conniienlaries  1  selected  Guize  as  my^uide; 
ami  I  still  third<  it  i.;  the  best:  he  reconciles  all  such 
dillicultiesasc.m  be  reconciled,  and  some  he  acknow- 
ledfjcs  he  is  not  able  to  explain.  After  these,  I  am 
sorry  Mr.  Barnes  undertook  it.  The  man  did  so  much 
f^ood.  He  certainly  did  push  on  the  temperance 
cause  in  the  very  lace  of  an  audience  at  hrst  much 
opposed  to  il,  and  since  then  many  more  have  en- 
traj^ed  in  the  same^ood  work.  1  wish  he  would  turn 
his  atieniion  more  to  that  and  let  these  minor  mat- 
ters pass.  I  do  not  ap()rovc  all  ihat  is  in  his  book, 
especially  all  I  hat  about  Adam's  sin:  and  ihe  change 
ol  laiiiiuaife  on  I  hat  subject  1  also  disapprove,  but  1 
do  not  believe  tlie  man  ineHiis  to  deny  oiiiiinal  sin. 
But  the  moment  our  denominalion  ol  Chrisiians  un- 
dertake to  explain  wlut  God  has  not  explained,  and 
tell  all  ihe  why  and  wlierifore  of  his  doings  they  en- 
{fage  in  a  business  which  if  it  is  not  anti-scripiural  is 
ut  least  super-scripLural.  JNoae  disapjiroves  such 
prying  speculalinns  nn^re  than  I  do.  It  is  not  li.r 
edificaiion.  To  be  sure  it's  well  enough  to  raise 
these  |)oints  fjr  an  evening's  discussion  in  some  little 
literary  club  or  associaiion,  and  there  me  may  dilfer 
to  the  very  utmost  ;  and  when  webreak  up  all'sover, 
and  we  leave  iiaitirs  just  where  we  found  them.  To 
go  firther  does  no  j;oad,  il  only  distracts  meii's brains 
undseis  them  together  by  the  ears,  ju.  t  as  they  used 
to  bft  vvlx'u  thi*y  came  loifciher  at  Corinth  to  eat  the 
Lord's  Supper. 


MR.    BARNES,  193 

The  Moderator  called  to  Dr.  ('atlicarf   (o  ordt^r. 

Dr.  C.  Why,  Moderator,  I  arn  (>ptiiikin^  again.^t 
the  hook  now.  However,  I  ciiiinot  niuintain  the  ap- 
peal. 1  have  not  heard  the  Presbytery  ;  tliat  stum- 
bles me. 

Mr.  Kennedy. 

I  have  compared  the  i.aesagts  quoted  with  the 
clmrtres,  hut  as  I  was  not  in  the  Houi?e  the  whole 
time  it  would  be  improper  lor  me  to  give  an  opinion, 
or  to  vote. 

Mr.  Maginley. 

I  was  afTectcd  witii  surprise  and  distress  when  I 
lieard  it  alleged  (hat  the  Synod  isgcnerally  supposed 
to  be  {rreaiiy  prejudiced  in  this  case.  1  do  not  think 
60.  I  see  no  reason  why  they  sl.ould  be.  A  ^reat 
uuxriy  of  us  live  lar  Iroin  the  bounds  of  the  Prepbyie- 
ry  more  immedialoly  concerned,  nor  are  vve  envious 
ol'the  distinction  fil'  our  brethren.  And  that  the  Sy- 
nod is  more  prejudiced  than  the  General  Assembly 
would  be,js  what  cannot  be  shown.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  case  are  spread  lar  and  wide  :  lor  this 
ihinji^  was  not  done  in  a  corner.  Wherever  the  Pres- 
byterian church  has  spread  througliout  this  Union, 
there  icj  to  be  found  more  or  less  acquaintance  with 
this  cape.  But  instead  of  too  great  a  zeal  Ibr  truth> 
we  have  rather  to  lauiCnt  a  growing  inditierencc  to 
it;  and  to  me  it  is  pleasing  to  see  some  evidence  of  a 
revival  of  zeal  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  sound  doc- 
trine :  fori  have  lon^:  ob.-crved  that  inditiV^rcnce  to 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospil  of  Christ  is 
fast  growing  in  our  cburciies.  If  we  are  to  judge  of 
doctrine.?  from  the'r  inlluence,  then  tlie  opinions  pro- 
mulgated by  Mr.  L'u  nes  must  be  bad:  tor  their  eti'ect 
is  to  raise  man  in  his  own  estimation,  and  just  in  the 
eame  proportion  to  bring  down  the  glory  of  God  our 
Savior.  V\*haiever  doctrine  exalts  man  is  diametri- 
cally opposite  to  the  Bible.  We  are  toKi  that  man  is 
not  in  a  state  of  corruption,  and  that  be  possesses 
plenary  ability  to  work  out  his  own  salvation.  And 
It  is  .-Lliirnitd  that  improvements  in  divinity  are  to 
keep  pace  wilii  the  improvement  of  human  science. 
This  tends  to  generate  pride.  1  think  that  ail  the 
counts  under  the  general  cirarge  of  herfsy  have  not 
been  established  with  equal  clearness.  Some  of  the 
doctrines  quoted  from  the  book,  hov/ever,  arc  palpa- 
bly against  our  standards.  Error  has  been  clearly 
demonstrated  on  some  points,  but  not  so  clearly  on 
others.  But  there  is  sulKcient  evidence  to  sustain 
the  charges  throughout. 

Mr.  H.  R.  Wilson. 

()eny  what  1   understand  to  be  the  meaning  of  Rom. 
viii.  7.    What  he  says   on  pages   164  and  165  ol  his 


194  TRIAL    OF 

book,  on  that  point,  docs  not  sati.^fy  mo.  II»"  holds, 
ill  coiitriuiicfioii  to  the.  (ieclaralion  ol'lheapostle.  that 
fallen  man  has  full  ability  to  keep  the  commandments 
ofGod.  I  shall  vote  to  sustain  the  appeal. 
Mr.  Sharon. 
On  readinf?  Mr.  Baniefe'tj  book,  I  find  that  the  doc- 
trine ol'ihc  ri'prctic'iiiative  character  of  Adam,  which, 
ncr^ordin^  lo  tlie  common  use  and  acceptation  ol' lan- 
guage, is  plainly  tauirht  in  Scripture,  is  distinctly 
impugned  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  imputation  is  also  se- 
riously allecti'il.  I  must,  lor  my  own  part,  take  lan- 
Kuage  in  t!ie  J5ihle  and  out,  of  it  according  to  its  plain 
and  common  accopialion:  and  if  the  object  of  the  au- 
thor had  been  to  convince  me  that  he  did  not  receive 
thet^e  doctrines,  he  could  not  have  used  language 
more  directly  calculated  to  produi-e  that  impression. 
This  bock  and  our  Confession  of  Faith  cross  each 
other  almost  at  right  angles.  1  am  therefore  for  eus- 
tain'JQg  the  appeal. 

Mr.  McKnight. 
I  have  some  diiJiculties  on  my  mind,  in  i;elation  to 
this  case,  vvhi<h  are  not  obviated  by  any  thing  I  have 
yet  heard.  Many  of  my  co-j)resbyters  have  felt  the 
same,  but  have  puH'ered  theni  lo  pass  in  silence.  I 
too  have  sat  silently  unid  now;  but  as  we  are  acting 
on  our  personal,  individual  resijon.-iivility,  and  in  the 
character  ol  judges,  I  iliink  it  proper  to  state  yvhat 
ni>^  impressiuns  are:  for  I  have  not  been  able,  in  all 
points,  to  agree  wiih  my  brethren  on  either  side.  I 
lelt  home  wiih  a  mind  unprejudiced.  I  was  not  per- 
sonally acquiinied  v.'ith  the  t)roiher  who  is  accused, 
nor  had  1  re„nj  his  hook.  1  had  seen  nothing  relating 
lo  this  cause  but  the  charges  of  the  prosecutor,  ana 
the  judi:-ment  of  the  court  below.  1  took  my  seat 
with  a  mind  as  impartial  as  ever  a  man  poi^sesscd  on 
earth.  1  felt  my  position  to  he  a  solemn  one,  and  sur- 
rounded with  responsibiliiies  to.  the  church,  to  the 
world,  and  to  the  great  Head  and  Lordol'Zion.  But, 
iu  the  irifipient  stages  ol  the,  trial,  1  was  not  a  little 
etanled  at  the  posiiion  the  Synod  look  in  relation  to 
the  parties.  If  I  understand  the  provisions  of  cur 
conslilutio.'i  on  the  subject  oi  api)eals,  the  thing  ope- 
rates in  iliis  way:  When  a  cause  has  been  irit  t*  in  a 
court  below,  and  is  curried  up  by  appeal  to  a  higher 
tribunal,  the  original  panics  are  there  oul.  of  view. 
Before  this  court  there  are  new  parties,  viz.  the  ap- 
pellant and  the  court  aiipealed  Irom  ;  and  then  the 
only  question  to  be  settled  is  this:  Was  the  judgment 
given  by  the  inferior  court  just,  or  not?  To  show 
you  that,   iii^  holdi.ig  this  opinion,   I  stand  on  ijolid 

Tn'We   lii^Jl'prace,  wl'iat  are  the  grounci.^oAy'^c^il",' 
"  Any  irregularity  in  the  proceed]  gs  of  the  iafcriof 


MR.   BARNE9.  195 

Judicatory:  a  reRisal  of  rensonuble  indulgence  to  n. 
party  on  trial:  decliitinfj  to  receive  important  testi- 
mony :  hurrying  to  a  decision  belbrc  I  lie  testimony  ia 
fully  taken:  a  maiiilestation  ol"  prejudice  in  the  case: 
and  mistaite  or  injuKiii-e  in  the  decition,  are  ail  pro- 
per grounds  oi  aijpeal.''    Suppose  an  appeal  is  taken 
on  the  ground  ol'  prejudice  ;  ihen  you  ai  e  to  examine 
that  point:  you  are  to  hear  lestnuony  on  ii :  you  liavo 
to   determine   that,  and  that  only.    So   in   ihe  10th 
6ub-seciion  ol' section  3,  liie  object  of  the  decision  by 
the  appellate  court  is  declared  to  be,  "  eimer  to  con- 
firm, or  reverse,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  decision  of 
the  inferior  judicalory :  or  to  remit  the   cause,  for 
the  purpose  of  amending  the  record,    should  it  ap- 
pear to  be  incorrect  or  defective ;  or  for  a  new  trial." 
in  my    view,  the   very   nature  of  an  appeal  implies, 
that  there  is  nothinir  to  do  wiiii  the  incipient  stage  of 
the  cause,  until  the  appeal  shall  be  issued.     The  ori- 
ginal p.uties  do  not  come  in  at  all,  until  the  fourth 
stage  ol  the  proceeding.    In  deciding  tlie  appeal,  it  ia 
necessary    to  have  the  testimony,  and  a// the  testi- 
mony, which  was  laid  before  the  court  below.    And, 
in  the  present  case,  as  we  have  not  all  the  testimony, 
1  cannot,  in  view  of  my  ordination  vow  to  maintain 
the  constitution  ot  our  church,  vole  at  all,  c 
or  the  other. 
I  am  fully  aware  of  being  exposed  to  the  sarcasms 
whicii  proceed  irom  a  certain  corner  of  the  house, 
against  any  who  maintain  such  an  opinion.    But  if 
the  sneers  of  the  brother  are  thrown  at  me,  I  can 
assure  him  they  will  fall  harmless  to  the  ground,  for 
1  am  strong  in  conscious  innocence.    It  is  afar  easier 
task  to  throw  out  sarcasm  and  invective,  than  to  an- 
swer argument,    A  father  has  said  that  he  is  asto- 
nished tiitre  should  be  any  difficulty  felt  on  the  score 
of  defective  evidence,  because  he  thinks  it  is  complete 
and  perfect.    But  I  can  asbure  him  that  I  have  difli- 
culties  on  that  ground;  and  I  will  tell  Jiim  why  I  dif- 
fer from  him  in  opinion.    I  am  no  lawyer.    1  never 
either  studied  or  practised  law;  but  I  have  often  at- 
tended courts,  both  civil  atid  criminal;  and  1  have 
there  learned  some  of  the  principles  of  judicial  juris- 
diction: and  the  same  principles,  being  of  a  general 
nature,  may  usefully  be  applied  to  courts  ecclesias- 
tical.   The  analogy   of  proceedings   is   often    very 
close.    Now,  in  civil  courts,  it  is  well  known  that  no 
court  but  that  in  which  the  triiU  commences  can  make 
up  t  he  record :  and  il  it  is  niut  ilated ,  or  lost,  no  other 
authority  can  amend  or  restore  it.    As  there  are  law- 
yers here,  1  challenge  contradiction  to  this  position. 
Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.    The  book  the  brother  holda 
in  his  hand  expressly  provides  that  if  a  record  is  mu- 
tilated you  may  supply  it. 
Mr.  McKnight.    I  appeal  then  to  lawyers  out  of 


\96  tRlAL   OJ' 

this  court.  I  have  on  this  subject  the  opinion  of  an 
eminent  judge.  And  1  have  inyseli"  iseen  the  point 
decided  from  ilie  bencli.  1  luive  known,  when  ii  has 
been  discovered  ihat  the  record  has  been  mutilated, 
the  court  to  reluse  to  pio/eed  in  the  cause.  And 
this  opinion  is  preaiiy  stren<rt|iencd  by  wliat  takes 
place  in  our  criminal  courts.  Suppose  a  man  is  in- 
dicted I'or  iiuirder,  and  condemned,  and  an  appeal  is 
taken  to  a  higher  court.  If  it  is  found  that  the  re- 
cord has  been  mutilated,  will  the  judire  attempt  by 
oral  testimony,  lo  supply  the  defect  l  No  ;  and  why  7 
because  the  law  is  so  extremely  cautious  in  putting 
men's  rights,  and  still  more  iheir  lives  in  jeopardy, 
on  mere  ex-parte  proof.  Common  sense  would  Ih 
such  a  case  sustain  both  judge  and  jury  in  acquitting 
the  prisoner.  i\'ow  in  this  case  the  original  parties 
arc  Dr.  Junkin,  the  Prosecutor,  and   Mr.  Barnes  the 

garty  accused.    These  were  the  panics   before  the 
resbytery.    But  they  are  not  the  parties  belore  us. 
The  parties  here  are  the  person  appealing,  and  the 
court  appealed  from.     The  parties  belore  this  Synod, 
are  Dr.  Junkin,  and  the  Assembly's  second  Presbyte- 
ry of  Philadelphia.   And  the  question  lor  us  to  decide 
is,  whether  the  Presbytery  have  done  right  or  wrong 
in  passing  the  sentence  appealed   Irom  ;  Dr.  Junkin 
eays  they  were  wrong,  and  l;as  tried  to  show  it ;  the 
Presbytery,  if  they  admitted  our  jurisdiction  would 
have  to  show  that  they  had  done  right.   But  here  the 
original  parties  have  been  belore  us  from  the  begin- 
ning.    We  are  trying  Mr.  Barnes  ibr  his  book,  not 
the  Presbytery  for  its  sentence:  and  the  accused  has 
been  vehemently  censured   because    he  reluses  to 
etand  and  be  judged  at  your  judgment  seat.    To  cast 
Buch  censures  is  a  thing  I  never  could  have  done, 
with  this  cwnstitution  in  my  hand.    The  Presbytery 
has  reliised  us  their  records.     With  that  1  liave  noth- 
ing to  do.     That  they  had  a  right  to   withhold  them, 
if  they  chose  lo  do  so,  I  have  no  doubt.    For   as  to 
the  talk  about  the  Presbytery's   being  contumacious 
because  they  have  refused  our  jurisdiction,  it  is  idle. 
They  plead  a  constitutional  right :  and  the  moment  a 
question  of  constitutionality   is   raised,  contumacy  is 
at  an  end.    But  when   the  Presbytery   entered  their 
plea  in  bar,  ifyou  had  thought  proper  to  overrule  it, 
you  would  then  have  been  on  constitutional  ground  : 
and  from  what  I  have  heard  out  of  doors,  1  have  rea- 
son to  believe  tkat,  the  Synod   would  have  been  sus- 
tained in  that  course.  But  when  a  Presbytery  throws 
round  itself  the  shield  of  the  constitution,  1  as  a  free- 
born  American,  honor  them  for  standing  upon  their 
rights.    The  question  they  have  raised  will  go  up  to 
the  Assembly  and  there  it  will  be  settled.    But  to  try 
brother  Barnes  on  the  original  testimony,  is  certainly 
to  violate  all  principle  and  precedent,  civil  and  eccie- 
eiastical. 


MR.   BARNES.  197 

But,  eupposino:  the  whole  course  of  the  Synod  to 
have  been  correct,  I  deny  that  the  char^ies  liave  been 
proved.  1  must  hold  tliis  opinion  until  1  have  heard 
all  the  testimony.  I  have  no  doubt  you  have  got  the 
whole  on  ihe  side  of  the  prosecution:  but  have  wc 
nothing  to  do  with  tha:  wliich  was  exhibited  on  the 
olhcr  side  to  thr;  court  below?  Think  you  that  such 
a  man  as  Albert  Barnes,  charged  as  he  has  been 
from  North  to  South  with  holding  heretical  opinions, 
would  sit  still,  and  not  present  a  word  in  reply  ?  No: 
it  is  not  supposable  :  there  is  the  strongest  presump- 
tion against  it :  besides  which  we  have  heard  it  affirm- 
ed here,  again  and  again,  that  the  contrary  is  true. 
But  in  re])ly  to  this,  we  are  told  that  it  is  in)material 
what  he  said,  bccau.^e  we  have  all  the  testimony  we 
need  in  his  book  itself.  I  admit  it:  but  I  ask,  have 
wo  heard  the  book  read  to  us  ?  have  we  all  before  us 
which  the  book  contains  7  If  the  book  is  the  testimo- 
ny, has  all  the  testimony  been  read?  And  if  the  book 
is  sulficient,  why  have  we  heard  Dr.  Junkin,  at  great 
length?  He  did  read,  some  times,  from  the  book:  at 
other  times  from  his  own  munuscripr.  But  if  ail  the 
evidence  is  the  book,  why,  I  ask,  has  not  the  book 
been  read  in  evidence?  There  was  a  demand  for  the 
reading  of  it,  and  it  was  called  for  by  the  necessity  of 
the  case,  as  neither  Mr.  Barnes  nor  the  Presbytery 
have  laid  any  thing  else  before  us:  but  it  lias  not  been 
done.  I  have  heard  very  severe  censure  cast  on  Mr. 
Barnes  for  the  course  he  lias  adopted.  It  is  not  for 
me  to  judge  the  motives  cither  of  the  accused  or  of 
Jiis  Presbytery  :  but  I  believe  both  to  be  consciencious 
men,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  they  believe  them- 
selves to  stand  on  constitutional  ground.  Nor  docs 
his  course  evidence  to  me  any  wish  to  avoid  a  trial, 
because  he  came  prepared  for  and  expecting  a  trial, 
and  told  us  he  was  ready.  He  has  not  participated 
in  tiie  course  of  his  Presbytery,  nor  has  he  even  ac- 
quiesced in  it :  he  has  only  ceased  to  resist  it.  But 
he  was  brought  to  a  point  where  great  injustice  was 
likely  to  be  the  result  if  he  liad  sudered  the  trial  to 
go  on.  I  do  not  know  whether,  if  similarly  situated, 
1  should  have  acted  in  the  same  v/ay.  Perhaps  when 
I  found  that  the  records  proper  to  my  defence  were 
withheld,  and  that  I  was  lei't  naked  and  defenceless, 
I  might  have  thrown  myself  on  the  justice  of  my 
brethren,  and  made  my  appeal  to  them  on  the  fact 
tliat  the  records  were  denied  me,  and  pleaded  before 
them  the  want  of  evidence.  But  I  have  no  doubt 
he  acted  from  good  motives.  Any  impeachment  of 
motive  is  improper,  and  should  not  he  indulged  in. 
They  who  know  me  know  that  I  shrink  from  no  re- 
sponsibility, and  that  I  have  been  a  sufferer  from 
fidelity  to  my  constituents:  but  I  tremble  at  the 
thought  of  assuming  responsibility  in  a  course  of  er- 
17 


198  TEIAL   0» 

ror.    I  know  that  in  this  case  a  rceponsibility  of  the 
most  awful  character  is  necessarily  assumed.    The 
eyes  of  the  church,  the  eyes  of  the  world  are  upon 
us.    Great  results  are  to  issue  from  what  we  do.    I 
am  no  prophet  nor  prophet's  son,  but  I  plainly  see 
that  an  irregular  issuing  of  ihic  cause,  so  far  from 
allaying,  wiU  auojment  the  contests  in  our   It-rael. 
We  all  know  that  languaire  will  often  impress  upon 
the  reader  what  was  not  in  the  mind  of  the  author 
who  used  it.    Asd  skill  in  argument  may  draw  out 
of  the  writings  of  almost  any  man  oi)inioris  which 
the  wriier  never  held.    1  saw  an  instance  of  this  am- 
biguity of  language  not  a  great  while  ago.    There 
was  a  party  on  board  a  steamboat  going  up  the  Hud- 
son, and  to  relieve  the  tedium  of  their  situation  it 
was  proposed  that-  one  ol"  the  party  should  read  aloud 
o  the  rest.    Wheii  the  fir-st  reader  was  somewhat 
weary,  he  turned  round  to  the  gentleman  next  him 
and  said,  "  Sir,  will  you  spell  me?"   The  gentleman 
assenting,  immediately   selected   some  of  the  most 
difficult  words  in  what  had  been  read  and  propounded 
them  to  the  other  to  spell.    The  same  thing  happens 
in  a  thousand  cases  every  day,  when  meanings  are 
put  upon  a  man's  words  wlijcli  he  never  intended  to 
convey,  and  perhaps  never  thought  of.    But  we  are 
told  that  there  is  a  necessity  to  travel  out  of  the 
limits  of  the  written  constitution  in  order  to  get  at 
the  case.    It  may  be  that  we  cannot  otherwise  get  at 
it ;  but  a  high  Authority  has  commanded  us  never  to 
do  evil  that  good  may  come.    And  surely  we  do  evil 
when  we  travel  out  of  the  prescribed  path  of  our 
duty,  a  path  we  have  promi-ed  to  follow.    We  all 
know  that  it  is  a  ])rinciple  which  generally  operates 
among  mankind,  that  it  is  better  to  let  ninety-nine 
guilty  persons  escape  than  one  innocent  man  should 
sufler:  and  seeing  that  there  is  an  impression  on 
many  minds  that  the  testimony  is  imperfect  and  ex 
parte,  would  it  not  be  betti  r  that  the  Synod  should 
lean  to  the  side  of  mercy  ?    If  1  were  called  to  ex- 
press an  opinion  on  the  case  out  of  doors,  I  should 
feel  no  hesitation  in  doing  so  ;  but  as  a  judge  I  am  to 
know  nothing  but  from  the  testimony,  and  that,  aa 
here  given,  1  consider  insutTii-ient.    It  I  would  not  re- 
fuse to  receive,  night  alter  night,  as  a  minister  of 
Christ  one  who  hnkls  the  opinions  expressed  by  bro- 
ther Barnes,  and  if  I  would  myself  sit  under  the  mi- 
nistry ol  such  a  m:.in,  ought  1  not  to  tremble  at  the 
thought  of  coming  here  and  saying,  that,  "  whoever 
holds  such  sentiments  cannot  be  a  child  of  God  ?" 

Mr.  R.  Breckinhidge.  The  insinuation  of  the 
speaker,  if  directed  at  me,  is  an  absolute  untruth. 

Mr.  M'Knigut,  (in  continuation.)  I  only  slated  a 
hypothetical  case.  I  believe  our  standards  are  aa 
competent  to  put  down  heresy  now  as  ever  they  were : 


MR.  BARNES.  19^ 

and  the  history  of  the  church  has  proved  that  our 
fathers  were  correct  in  trusiinj?  to  the  effect  of  them. 
I  do  not  know  a  single  case  oi  heresy  which  has  not 
been  discovered  and  put  down.  Our  standards  are 
as  complete  now  as  they  were  in  their  days,  and  so 
lon^  as  I  remain  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  I  shall  feel  bound  to  keep  within  that  line  of 
proceedin^r  wiiich  they  prescribe,  and  shall  dissent 
from  and  disapprove  any  departure  from  it  to  answer 
a  temporary  purpose. 

Mr.  Dk  Witt. 
It  is  not  my  intention  to  detain  the  Synod  with  ma- 
ny remarks.  Much  that  I  wished  to  say,  has  been 
said  by  others,  better  than  I  could  say  it  myself.  I 
feel  embarras.sed,  wilh  many  of  my  brethren,  in  giv- 
ing a  judgment  in  ihis  case,  in  consequence  of  the 
peculiar  altitude  which  all  the  parties  have  thought 
proper  to  assume.  Tiie  Presbytery  against  whose 
decision  tlie  appeal  lies,  have  declined  thp  jurisdic- 
tion of  this  court,  on  \vhat  they  believe  to  be  consti- 
tutional grounds.  Mr.  Barnes,  without  deciding 
himself  whether  the  ground  taken  by  the  Presbyte- 
ry, in  declining  the  jurisdiction  of  this  court,  is  con- 
stitutional or  not,  declines  respectfully  to  appear  be- 
fore your  bar,  because  he  professes  conscientiously 
to  believe  that  the  trial,  under  these  circumstances, 
will  not  be  constitutional,  or  at  least  that  his  inte- 
rests will  be  seriously  prejudiced  in  doing  so.  The 
parties  having  assumed  these  attitudes,  I  was  anx- 
ious myself,  with  others,  to  have  the  whole  subject 
referred  to  the  next  Assembly.  Had  this  been  the 
ultimale  court  oi  appeal — if  we  had  it  not  in  our  pow- 
er to  secure,  by  a  reference,  a  decision  of  this  case  by 
the  whole  church  in  General  Assembly — I  should 
have  been  for  urging  the  decision  here,  under  all  the 
embarrassments  v.'ith  which  we  are  surrounded. 
The  Synod  fiave  not  thought  proper  to  refer  it. 
They  have  proceeded  to  hear  the  evidence  as  pro- 
duced by  the  appellant,  and  his  argument  on  that  evi- 
dence in  support  of  his  charges,  and  we  are  now 
called  upon  to  render  judgment  in  the  case.  The 
judgment  must  be  found  on  the  evidence.  But  here 
a  question  arises  of  vast  importance.  Has  Mr.  J. 
read  all  the  evidence  which  appeared  before  the  low- 
er court  and  influenced  them  in  the  decision,  from 
which  Mr.  Junkin  has  appealed  ?  My  conviction  has 
been,  and  still  is,  that  this  is  far  from  being  the 
whole  evidence  produced  before  the  lower  court 
on  which  they  founded  their  decision.  II' we  are  to 
consider  the  evidence  read  by  Mr  J.  as  the  only  evi- 
dence before  us,  my  opinion  is,  that  it  will  be  impos- 
sible to  give  a  righteous  decision.  In  this  view  of 
the  subject,  I  must  decline  an  expression  of  opinion. 


200  TRIAL    OF 

If,  as  some  have  atlirmed,  the  book,  (he  whole  book 
oi  Mr.  Barnes  on  the  Kmiiaiis,  ie  now  before  us  as  a 
record  ofevidence  to  intliieiice  our  judstiicnfs  in  lliis 
rnatler,  then,  as  it  lias  not  been  read  in  open  court, 
and  I  have  never  beard  tlie  wliolc  of  it,  I  am  not  suf- 
ficiently acciuaiiited  with  the  evidence  to  pive  an  im- 
partial and  riijliteous  decision.  L'rum  all  the  examin- 
ation I  have  been  able  to  give  ii,  though  it  Jias  not 
been  so  full  and  so  close  as  I  desire  it  to  be,  1  cannot 
sustain  the.se  charges.  If  1  must  give  my  opinion 
now,  with  the  ii-jipresi^ion  which  my  cxaminaiinn  of 
tiie  evidence,  as  far  as  it  has  gone,  has  produced  on 
my  mind,  it  must  be,  that  the  appeal  should  not  be 
sustained.  Let  me  briefly  refer  to  some  ol  the 
charges. 

Dr.  Junkin  charges  Mr.  Barnes  with  holdinsf  sen- 
sentiments  on  the  doctrine  of  human  abiliiy  not  in 
accordance  wiih  the  standards  of  tiie  church.  The 
evidence  read  by  Dr.  Junkin  in  support  of  this  charge 
taken  by  itsell,  miglit  go  to  sustain  it.  But,  sir,  the 
book  contains  statements  which,  when  placed  along- 
side of  those  adduced  by  the  appellant,  materially 
affect  the  evidence.  For  instance,  Mr.  Barnes,  in 
his  book,  thus  paraphrases  the  words  ''  J  find  not,^' 
in  the  last  clause  of  the  liih  ver^e  of  the  7ih  of 
Roniiins — "I  do  not  find  it  in  my  power,  or  I  find 
strong  constant  obstacles,  so  that  I  fail  ol  doing  it. 
The  obstacles  are  not  natural,  but  such  as  arise  from 
long  indulgence  in  sin  ;  the  strong  native  propensity 
to  evil." 

That  I  am  not  singular  in  supposing  ;hat  these 
statements  of  Mr.  B.  sustain  the  doctrine  of  human 
ability  as  taught  in  our  standards.  I  take  the  liberty 
of  referring  to  I'le  criticism  in  ih«  Biblical  Repertory 
already  alluded  to,  and  which  we  have  been  told  by 
a  gentleman  on  this  floor,  is  from  the  pen  of  Profes- 
sor Hodge.  He  says,  referring  to  the  very  state- 
ments quoted  above, 

"Even  this  opinion,  [ihe  doctrirrcs  of  the  standard,  on 
ability]  JMr.  Barnes  seems  to  recognise  as  correct."— 13.  llep. 
vol.  -,  p.  22. 

St)  al.^0  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  on 
which  the  sentiment;?  of  Mr.  B,  have  been  impugned 
by  Dr.  Junkin.  The  evidence  presented  by  him,  la- 
ken  alone,  might  sustain  the  charge.  But.  sir,  this 
is  not  the  only  evidence,  if  the  whole  book  be  the  re- 
cord of  the  evidence  before  the  court.  On  page  122, 
Mr.  Barnes  says: 

"  Men  are  indubitably  aflecled  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  a^,  e.  g. 
by  beinn;  born  wiili  a  corrupt  disposition,  with  loss  of  right- 
eousness and  subjection  to  pain  and  wo." 

Here  again  I  am  not  alone  in  supposing  that  tliis 
statement  iu  this  passage  amply  sustains  the  doctrine 


MR.    BARNK«.  201 

of  the  Confession.  Mr.  Hod^e,  eir,  whom  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  have  elected  to  teach  our  younsr  men 
theology  and  correct  exegesis,  in  the  review  relerred 
to,  in  allusion  to  this  passage,  says: 

"Here  are  evils  inconceivably  great  and  dreadful,  which 
are  declared  to  come  on  all  men  prior  to  aU  a<;ency  or  con- 
currence of  their  own,  for  a  sin  committed  some  thousand 
years  heforc  tiieir  binh  and  beyond  their  control.  Further 
than  this,  who  need  wish  to  go?  Further,  the  scriptures. 
the  reformers,  our  own  standards,  and  the  great  body  of  ola 
orthodo.v  divines  do  not  go."— Page  23. 

I  quote  the  Repertory,  merely  to  sustain  my  opi- 
nion that  this  book  does  contain  statements  which, 
when  laid  alongside  ol"  those  that  have  been  adduced 
by  the  appellant  to  prove  his  charges,  will  materially 
ati'ect  them  as  evidence  in  the  case  before  us,  in  llie 
mind  of  all  di.sp3ssionate  men. 

Again :  Dr.  Junkin  charges  Mr.  Barnes  with  de- 
nying the  important  doctrine  of  justification  as  taught 
in  our  standards ;  and  no  doubt  his  quotations  from 
the  book,  as  they  appear  before  us,  isolated,  and 
without  their  connection,  may  appear  to  sustain  the 
charge.  But,  sir,  these  statements  do  not  contain 
the  entire  evidence.  On  page  58,  Mr.  B.  thus  ex- 
plains the  phrase  ''  bein^  jnistijied" : 

"  Being  treated  as  if  righteous,  i.  e.  bemg  regarded  and  treat- 
ed as  if  thoy  had  kept  the  law.  It  does  not  mean,"  he  adds, 
"that  it  has  been  without  price  or  merit  from  any  one,  for 
the  Lord  Jesus  has  purchased  it  with  his  own  blood,  and  to 
him  it  is  a  matter  of  justice  that  those  who  were  given  him 
ehould  be  justified." 

These  statements  contain,  in  my  opinion,  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  as  taught  in  the  standards  of  our 
church,  at  least  the  essential  features  ot  this  doc- 
trine, and  the  Repertory  so  regards  them  :  see  page 
29.  I  migiit  quote  other  passages,  of  the  same  gene- 
ral bearing.  Sir,  to  me  it  is  most  evident,  that  we 
are  not  prepared  to  give  a  righteous  decision  in  this 
case.  1  speak  for  myself  alone.  I  am  not.  I  regret 
it,  sir.  I  wish  the  matter  could  here  be  decided. 
But,  in  my  opinion,  it  cannot  be.  It  ought  to  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Assembly.  If,  however,  under  present 
circumstances,  I  am  pressed  to  give  my  vote,  it  must 
be,  that  the  appeal  is  not  sustained. 

Mr.  James  Williamson. 
I  do  think  that  one  or  two  of  the  latter  speakers 
have  endeavored  to  set  this  case  in  such  a  light  as 
requires  correction.  I  am  not  learned  in  matters  of 
law,  or  the  proceedings  of  our  civil  courts  :  but  our 
own  law,  the  constitution  which  we  have  voued  to 
maintain,  speaks  expressly  and  clearly  :  and  I  hope 
that  we,  as  judges,  shall  look  at  our  own  book,  and 
not  be  uravvQ  aside  from  it  by  the  proceedings  of 
17  » 


20Z  TRIAL    OF 

courts  and  lawyers.  Our  book  says  that  "  an  appeal 
is  the  removal  of  a  cause  already  decided,  from  an  in- 
terior to  a  superior  judicLitory,  by  a  party  agrprricved." 
It  is  not  the  revision  of  a  decision,  but  the  removal 
of  the  cause.  And  it  is  tiie  original  c;iu.'-e  itself 
which  has  come  up  here,  and  on  which  we  are  now 
to  pass,  and  not  a  sentence  of  the  iVesbyieiy  whicii 
we  are  to  censure  or  confirm.  The  Direclcry  pro- 
vides, that  the  hearing  of  t lie  lower  judicatory  in  ex- 
planation shall  be  the  liiih  step  in  the  p'rocess  of  issu- 
ing an  appeal.  That  court  is  not  a  p:irly,  farther' 
than  to  give  us  informaiion  as  to  the  grounds  of  their 
decision.  The  cause  of  Mr.  Barnes  is,  therefore,  as 
much  belorc  us  as  ii  was  belbre  the  lower  judicatory, 
and  the  parlies  are  the  same  here  as  there.  ^Ve  do 
not  judge  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery,  bave  in  so 
far  us  we  judge  the  sanie  cause  they  did,  and  our 
judgment  may  ditl'er  from  theirs. 

Moderator.  The  chair  must  arrest  this  course  of 
remark:  these  questions  have  all  been  already  set- 
tled. Tho  Moderator  did  indeed  sutler  the  brother 
previously  up  to  present  his  views  at  large,  and 
without  interruption,  that  there  might  be  no  appear- 
ance of  unfairness  toward  nicinbers  on  that  eide  of 
the  question :  but  he  does  hope  tfiat  all  the  members 
will  abstain  froai  farther  remark  en  that  point ;  it  is 
Battled. 

Mr.  W.  I  thought,  as  a  full  expression  of  opinion 
on  the  opposite  side  had  been  given,  that  there  was 
a  propriety  in  saying  a  word  by  way  of  reply.  iSut  1 
waive  it.  As  to  the  case  ii^eli,  I  do  not  suppose  thai 
we  are  setting  here  to  adjudge  the  appellee  on  the 
question  of  Ins  personal  piety.  On  that  1  shall  say 
nothing;  to  his  own  Master  he  must  stand  or  fall. 
The  only  question  we  have  to  decide  relates  lo  the 
doctrines  he  has  publishea  to  the  world  in  his  book  ; 
and  all  we  have  to  say  al)out  these,  is,  whether  they 
agree  with  the  standards  of  our  church,  or  not. 
There  may  be  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  pious  men, 
who  do  not  hold  our  Cotdessiou  :  with  that  we  have 
nothing  to  do.  Mr.  Barnes  has  professed  to  receive 
it:  and  we  have  to  say  whether  his  book  contrail icts 
it.  He  is  not  to  be  tried  on  a  charfj'e  of  immorality, 
or  of"  want  ol  zeal ;  but  on  certain  doctrines  whicli  he 
has  published,  and  which  are  alleged  to  contradict 
our  standards.  And  th.':  first  question  to  be  settled 
is,  are  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  the  indictment  con- 
tained in  the  book,  and  do  tiiey  stand  there  as  the 
prominent  opinions  it  contains?  On  this  point,  my 
mind  is  fully  satisfied:  1  believe  that  they  are.  I 
trust  I  have  looked  at  the  matter  with  candor.  I 
have  examined  the  book  previously  to  coming  here, 
and  all  that  I  have  here  heard  has  but  confirmed  rae 
ia  my  tirst  impression.    They  arc  in  the  book;  they 


MR.   BARNE9.  203 

sro  to  form  a  complete  system  ;  and  that  system  ie, 
ill  my  opinion,  heretical.  Take  one  ol'  the  ductriiiea 
away,  and  you  take  away  the  vvhoie.  Where  any 
one  of  them  is,  the  rest  invari.ibly  are  Ibund.  They 
may,  and  certainly  will,  he  carried  (hrther;  and,  in- 
deed, in  pirlicLilar  places  ol"  the  hook  they  are  so. 
The  second  poijit  to  he  determined,  is,  are  tlie-e  doc- 
trines contrary  to  our  standards?  tSoiiie,  I  admit, 
are  not  so  much  so,  were  they  not  inseparably  linked 
in  with  others  which  f?o  to  sap  the  Ibiindations  ofour 
faith,  if  our  constitution  he  true,  these  doctrines 
must  be  f.iKse.  They  are  utterly  ruinous  to  the  sys- 
tem we  have  exhilMted  to  the  world  as  ours.  The 
third  point  is,  Did  the  Pre.sl)ytery  decide  this  case 
below  asTceably  to  the  requirements  of  our  stand- 
ards i  Much  has  been  here  said  about  e.v  parte 
proceedin;^s,  and  ^.i"  ;)ar/e  testimony.  But  we  have 
a  cer:itied  copy,  or  rather  the  very  orif^inal  paper 
"which  was  belorc  the  Presbytery  when  they  made 
up  their  decision.  I  do  not  find  that  on  a  single 
charge  the  Presbytery  were  moved  to  their  decision 
by  any  evidence  that  was  exhibited  by  Mr.  Barnes 
on  the  opposite  side.  The  Presbytery  gives  their 
own  views  of  the  book.  On  the  subject  of  Adam's 
knowledge,  for  example,  the  Presbytery  say  that 
Adam  is  not  represented  as  ignorant  of  moral  rels.- 
tions,  but  it  is  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  very  words 
of  the  book. 

They  say  that  the  bock  speaks  only  in  reference  to 
the  Rabbinnical  assertions  about  Adam's  knowledge 
ol  the  scienics  and  so  forth;  but  the  book  speaks  in 
the  ordinary  way,  without  the  least  mention  or  refe- 
rence to  any  opinions  held  by  the  Rabbins.  It  might 
easily  be  shown  that  they  had  not  one  particle  more 
of  evidence  to  go  upon  than  we  have.  Indeed  they 
seem  to  teach,  in  their  sentence  of  acquittal,  the  very 
same  doctrines  as  are  charged  by  Dr.  Junkin  upon 
Mr.  Barnes'  book.  [Here  Air.  W.  read  I'rom  the  sen- 
tence of  Presbytery.]  To  me  the  case  is  plain.  It 
is  obvious  that  tlie  Presbytery  decided  on  no  other 
grounds  than  what  this  Synod  now  has  belore  it. 
There  is  the  book;  il  the  doctrines  charged  are  not 
in  it,  let  it  be  shewn,  li  those  doctrines  are  not  meant 
10  be  taught  there,  we  iTiust  have  a  new  language  in 
which  to  teach  religious  knowledge;  or  else  we  must 
at  least  remodel  all  the  phrases  in  which  we  have 
hereiolore  been  accustomed  to  teach  it.  I  do  think 
that  the  doctrines  of  the  book  on  Imputation  and 
Original  Sin,  and  on  Justification  by  the  Righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  are  all  in  set  contradiction  to  the  posi- 
tions of  our  Confession  of  Faith;  and  I  therefore 
lliink  that  the  appeal  ought  to  be  sustained. 

As  to  the  appeal  to  Princeton  Seminary,  all  the 
quotations  read  to  us  from  the  Repertory  contuiu 


*204  TRIAL  oir 

matter  introduced,  of  purpose,  to  shew  the  gross 
and  manil'old  0'v)ntradiclions  of  Mr.  Barnes  :  and  can 
we  give  judj^ment  in  favor  of  a  book  on  the  very  ex- 
press |)lea  that  it,  m  full  of  passages  in  wiiicli  it  con- 
tradicts itseli"?  All  error  conies  mixed  up  with  more 
or  less  of  Irulh;  and  hence  its  jirogress  in  the  world. 
There  is  no  hcreiical  book  in  existence  which  does 
not  contain  ninny  divine  truths.  But  the  very  passa- 
fres  which  have  been  quoted,  and  so  triumphantly 
quoted,  as  an  aroruinent  in  favor  o(  the  book,  are 
themselves  a  eullicient  ground  to  justify  its  condem- 
nation. 

Mr.  McKiNLEY. 

I  believe  the  case  is  wholly  before  the  house.  I 
was  one  of  those  who  in  the  General  Assembly  voted 
lor  the  union  of  the  Synod  of  Delaware  with  this 
Synod:  and  I  speak  the  sense  of  every  member  of 
the  Assembly  when  I  say  that  u  was  intended  that 
all  the  powers  of  the  former  Synod  should,  on  the 
union,  be  invested  in  the  latter.  The  only  thin^ 
wanting  was  an  express  order  tliat  it  should  briiifr  its 
minutes  with  it,  and  lay  tlvem  before  this  S)  nod.  But 
an  express  order  of  this  kind  was  wholly  unnecessa- 
ry, since  that  was  implied  in  the  ait  o(  union  itself. 
And  farther:  I  am  clearly  satisfied  from  the  evidence 
of  facts,  that  the  members  of  tlie  Second  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia  came  here  witli  that  understanding 
in  their  minds. 

I  have  been  informed,  I  believe,  that  the  Stated 
Cleik  of  that  Presbytery  broujrht  the  minutes  of  the 
Presbytery  into  this  house.  But  if  they  believed  that 
we  have  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case,  and  no  right  of 
review  or  control,  why  did  they  bring  their  book 
here  ?  The  only  question  lor  us  to  settle  is  wliether 
it  is  just  and  proper  to  go  on  and  try  the  cause  with- 
out the  appellee,  and  without  the  Presbytery?  As  to 
the  first  difliculty,  viz.  the  absence  of  the  appellee, 
the  Book  of  Discipline  in  its  very  letter  has  provided 
for  such  a  case,  and  decided  that  the  absence  of  the 
party  accused  shall  be  no  bar  to  proceeding.  In  the 
13tli  section  of  the  4lh  chapter  it  is  declared:  "  The 
uecond  citation  ought  always  to  be  accompanied  vvitli 
a  notice,  that  if  the  person  cited  do  not  appear  at  the 
time  appointed,  the  judicatory,  besides  censuring  him 
for  his  contumacy,  will,  after  assigning  some  person 
to  manage  his  defence,  proceed  tn  iakp  the  tenliniovy 
i  i  his  case  as  if  he  were  present. ^^  This  settles  the 
first  point;  anci  shows  that  in  certain  cases  it  is  pro- 
j»er  for  the  judicatory  to  proceed  with  the  trial  noi- 
withstanding  the  ab.sence  of  the  accused.  The  only 
other  question  is,  whether  the  abs-.'iiceof  a  doruaient 
said  to  coritain  a  part  of  the  evidence  laid  before  the 
lower  court  renders  the  giving  of  judgmei.t  improrer 
or  not.    Our  book  provides  for  this  also.    In  the  16th 


MR.    BARNES.  205 

8ub-section  of  tlie  3d  section  of  the  7tli  chapler  we 
find  these  vvordn  : 

"It  shall  always  be  deemed  the  duty  of  tlic  judicatory, 
whose  judgment  is  appeaKd  from,  lo  read  authentic  copies  of 
all  their  records  and  of  the  whole  testimony  relating  to  the 
matter  ef  I  he  appeal.  And  if  any  judicatory  shall  neglect  its 
duty  in  this  respect :  especially,  it'  thereby  an  appellant  who 
has  conduced  with  regularity  on  his  parr,  is  deprived  of  the 
privilege  of  havinsr  his  appeal  reasonably  issued,  siieh  judica- 
tory shall  be  censured,  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
ease." 

Here  it  is  clearly  implied  that  capes  may  occur 
where  the  lower  court  havitij?  neglected  lo  perform 
its  duty  by  sendinf?  up  its  records,  tlie  api)ellaie  court 
may  be  justified  in  proceeding?.  Tlie  word  "  especi- 
ally" shows  tiiis.  It  implies  u  dicsfinction  ;  just  as  it 
does  in  that  passajre  on  which  wc  rely  lor  the  war- 
rant of  a  rulin<?  eldership:  "  The  ehlers  who  rule 
well,  especially  such  as  labor  in  the  word  and  doc- 
trine." Suppose  the  Presbyloriai  records  had  been 
burnt,  could  not  we  procetti ?  No  doubt  we  ought  to 
get  them,  if  we  can :  but  if  tliev  had  been  burned,  and 
Dr.  Juiikin  iiad  a  certified  ropy,  we  ought  neverthe- 
ess  to  proceed,  and  in  tliir,  case  I  believe  that  the 
paper  he  produced  here  is  the  same  wliich  was  be- 
ibre  the  Presbytery.  The  decision,  whatever  it  may 
be,  will  he  very  serious  to  the  party  concerned  :  and 
an  appeal  has  been  made  to  our  mercy,  but  1  believ- 
ed that  the  accused  is  not  the  only  party  concerned. 
The  church  is  to  be  as  mucli  alfectt  d  by  it  as  he: 
and  therefore  if  mercy  is  to  be  our  guide,  let  us  shew 
mercy  as  well  to  one  as  to  the  other, 
Mr.  M.  B.  Patterson. 

It  seems  to  me  that  as  the  testimony  and  argument 
are  now  concluded,  we  have  passed  out  of  the  cha- 
rac'er  of  a  court  into  that  of  a  jury:  and  the  ques- 
tion we  have  nov;'  to  decide  is,  wlieihcr  ihe  testimony 
is  or  is  not  sullicient  to  sui)port  the  charges  of  the 
appellant.  It  is  not  ior  me  lo  decide  on  the  luanRer 
of  conducting  the  trial:  a  jury  cannot  question  the 
doings  of  the  court.  We  have  no  right  lo  raise  any 
Kuch  questional  this  point  of  our  proceedings.  The 
time  for  that  is  past,  i  now,  as  a  juror,  have  only 
to  ask  myself,  does  the  testimony  support  the  charge? 
I  therefore  think  that  all  remarks  about  the  order  of 
proceeding  are  out  of  order.  On  the  question  whe- 
ther the  proof  supports  the  charge,  1  am  prepared  lo 
say  that  it  does. 

Mr.  Wynkoop. 

The  question  before  us  has  two  parts:  1st.  Are  we 
prepared  individually  to  give  judgment  upon  the  case? 
and  2d.  What  judirmetit  ought  we  to  give?  I  have 
heard  mucl\  said  of  unpreparedness,  but  in  my  case 
it  docs  not  exist.    It  is  evident  tliat  Mr.  Barnes  was 


206  TRIAL   OF 

a  member  of  the  Presbytery,  ami   had,  as  such,  a 
rij^ht  to  vote  on  the  qucs-tion  of  submiiiiiig  their  min- 
utes, or  withholding  ihem  from  Synod,  and  niudt  be 
considered  as  having  in  that  matter  acted  with  the 
majority.  I(  he  had  been  in  favor  ol'tjubmittinor  them, 
but  had  been  outvoted,  he  had  the  rii^ht  of  protest.  If 
he  liad  entered  his  protest  at^ainst  the  decision  of  hia 
Presbytery,  he  wouitl  have  been  looked  upon  by  eve- 
ry one  as  siticerely  desirous  ol"  having  his  trial  here. 
But  if  he  had  adopted  neither  of  these  courses,  still 
he  had  a  right  as  an  accused  party  to  detnand  a  cer- 
tified copy  of  tlie  testimony  brought  against,  him.  and 
of  the  whole  testimony  in  his  cause.     This  could  not 
have  been  refused  to  iiim.  and  he  might  have  submit- 
ted that  to  the   Synod.    Again,  it  was   Mr.  Barnes 
himself  who  introduced  ail  the   evidence   that  was 
employed  in  his  delence  before  the  Presbytery  :  and 
he  had  it  with  him,  in  this  house,  so  that  any  want 
of  (ormaliiy  in  presenting  it  there  need  n(  t  have  hin- 
dered iis  production  belore   us,  unless  Mr.  Barnes 
himself  chose  to  withhold  it.    It  is  known  to  me  that 
a  private  copy  of  his  hook,  with  his  notes  upon  it,  is 
here  now:  that  an  individual  member  of  the  court* 
has  a  statement  of  Mr.  Barnes'  views,  and  that  you 
will  probably  hear  those  views,  through  him,  vvlien 
his  turn  shall  come  to  speak.  But  we  have  the  book : 
and  the  charges  are  directed  to  the  words  there  em- 
ployed.    The  error  is  said  to  be  in  the  words.    If  any 
man,  especially  a  prolessional  man,   cannot  under- 
stand wiiat  English  words  mean,  it  is  time  he  was 
sent  to  Sunday  school  to  learn.  But  with  all  the  diffi- 
culties which  encumber  and  embarrass  our  course.^ 
we  are  not  to  be   iiindered  from  the  performance  of 
our  duty  :  on  the  contrary  we  are  bound  to  scrutinize 
the  case  the  more  closely  because  the  party  accused 
is  not  present  before  us.    But  we  are  not  left  to  con- 
jecture as  to  Mr.  Barneb'  taking  pnrt  with  his  Pres- 
bytery.   He  told  us,  in  so  many  words,  that  if  it  were 
the  case  of  another,  he  did  not:  know  but  he  should 
do  the  same.    I  have,  for  myself,  no  hesitation  in  say- 
ing tliat  as  Mr.  Barnes  has   not  used  his   power  to 
bring  the  records   o(  his  trial  before  us,   which  he 
could  eanily  have  done,  and  a^s  he  has  justified   hia 
Presbytery  in  withholding  them  from  us,  we  aie  fully 
ju.^tified  in  proceeding  without  them. 

In  regard  to  the  errors  charged,  I  believe  they 
have  been  fully  proved,  with  the  exception  o(  tlie  lat- 
ter portion  of  the  fourth  charge,  and  aU-o  the  eighth. 
The  Utter  portion  of  the  Iburth  charge  he  does  teach, 
but  denies  that  it  is  an  error  :  and  the  eighth  I  do 
not  think  he  does  intend  to  teach.  The  thing  itself  to 
be  rare,  is  a  gross  error  :  our  confession  says,   that 

♦  Mr.  W.  wa3  understood  to  refer  to  Mr.  Campbell. 


MR.    BARNES.  '207 

whoever  makes  a  satisfaction  for  sin  must  make  a 
true  and  (ull  satisfaction.  Mr.  Barnes  doee  deny  that 
Christ  endured  the  penalty  of  the  law  :  but  the  error 
lies  in  misunderstanding  the  true  import  of  the  word 
'  penalty.*' 

If  a  debtor  delays  to  make  payment  of  his  debt,  hiw 
debt  grows  larger  :  but  Christ  met  the  whole  debt  of 
his  people,  and  paid  it  ofiatoiice.  As  to  the  remorse, 
endured  by  the  lost  in  hell,  it  is  not  occasioned  by 
looking  back  upon  their  crime,  but  by  looking  at  the 
penalty.  Remorse  is  not  itself  the  jjenaliy,  but  is  the 
effect  of  contemplating  the  penally.  What  Christ 
did,  he  did  voluntarily,  and  therelbre  could  not  have 
felt  remorse  in  relation  to  it;  and  yet  he  might  and 
did  endure  the  penally  of  the  law.  Every  awakened 
sinner  must  know  that  he  is  himself  inadequate  to 
meet  the  demands  of  the  law  :  but  when  God  in  hu- 
man flesh  appeared  he  endured  the  whole  of  the  de- 
mand and  tlius  became  the  end  of  the  law  lor  right- 
eousness to  every  believer.  Mr.  Barnes  has  commit- 
ted an  egregious  blunder  in  not  distinguishing  be- 
tween the  essential  penalty  of  the  law,  and  what  is 
merely  accidental  to  it.  [Here  Mr.  W.  quoted  from 
pages  89,  90  of  Mr.  Barnes's  book. J  Here  is  a  proper 
real  and  full  satisfaction  to  llie  law. 

With  the  exception  I  believe  that  the  doctrines 
charged  on  Mr.  Barnes  and  taught  by  him  are  against 
the  word  of  God  and  the  constitution  of  our  church  : 
that  the  belief  of  them  is  inconsistent  w-ith  his  pro- 
fession, and  the  teaching  of  them  is  a  violation  of  the 
promise  in  his  ordination  vows,  and  injurious  to  the 
peace  and  prosperity  of  the  church  of  God.  I  there- 
fore am  of  opinion  that  the  appeal  ought  to  be  sus- 
tained. 

1  am  aware  that  it  is  said  that  this  whole  affair  is  a 
mere  strife  of  words:  and  that  while  Mr.  Barnes 
differs  from  our  confession  in  words,  he  agrees  with 
it  in  substance.  But  he  has  quoted  the  very  words 
employed  by  the  confesssion,  and  endeavors  to  show 
that  they  contain  doctrine  which  is  abominable.  Yet 
he  has  subscribed  their  very  standard.  Now  he  must 
either  have  subscribed  what  he  holds  to  be  abominable 
doctrine  ;  or  he  subscribed  what  he  did  not  believe. 
Words  express  ideas.  So  our  opponents  think;  for 
tliey  are  most  tenacious  of  their  own  :  and  yet  ask  us 
to  give  up  ours  as  "  mere  words"  "  the  technicalities 
of  a  system."    I  shall  vote  to  sustain. 

Mr.  R.  S.  Grier. 
I  cannot  v&te  to  sustain  the  charges,  because  there 
is  a  lack  of  evidence.  It  is  asked,  however,  are  not 
Mr.  Barnes  and  the.Presbytery  themselves  the  guilty 
cause  of  this  deficiency  ?  1  (irmly  deny  that  they  are. 
Still  the  fact  remains,  that  there  is  a  want  of  evidence. 


208  TRIAL   OF 

It  is  said  tliat  the  only  witness  which  has  appeared 
hefo  e  us  was  ojjen  to  interrogation,  anil  liad  been 
lully  iiiterro^ateil.  It  is  true:  but  still  it  is  wholly 
e.v-parte.  Had  he  been  interrogated  by  one  who 
knew  the  whole  bearings  ot"  the  cause  and  was  fa- 
miliar with  the  book,  the  rebutting  testimony  would 
liave  appeared  so  ample,  that  it  would  be  im|)ossible 
to  f=u?tain  the  charges.  1  hope  they  will  uol  be  sus- 
tained. 

Mr.  Wallace. 

As  relates  to  the  doctrine  set  Ibrtli  in  the  book  of 
Mr.  Barnes,  I  am  unable  to  give  a  decided  opinion, 
never  having  read  his  book,  and  having  heard  but  a 
part  ol'it.  1  lully  bclit've  in  our  relation  to  God,  both 
civil  anil  moral.  In  regard  to  our  civil  relations,  I 
must  say  that  my  mind  is  not  satisfied  with  what  I 
have  heard  extraned,  but  under  existing  circum- 
stances I  must  decline  voting. 

Mr.  Cassett. 

I  consider  myself  bound  to  judge  exclusively  from 
the  testimony  laid  beiore  us.  In  what  1  have  to  say, 
I  shall  avoid  remarking  on  what  has  been  touched 
upon  by  other  members — one  thing  strikes  me  in  re- 
lation to  the  testimony,  which  1  have  not  heard  so 
fully  stated.  We  all  agree  tiiat  we  arc  to  he  govern- 
ed by  the  testimony  ;  but  we  seem  to  forget  tiiat  Mr. 
Barnes's  book  itself  is  the  only  tesiiu;ony  we  are  to 
go  by.  Now  it  is  generally  conceded  that  the  book 
does  not  contain  tlie  very  errors  charged  upon  it : 
but  here  is  the  point : — it  is  alleged  that  the  testimony 
is  incomplete,  inasmuch  as  the  book  has  had  no  ex- 
planation. This  objection  does  not  weigh  with  me 
any  thing.  For  the  only  question  is  are  the  errors 
in  the  book  ?  The  case  is  exactly  parallel  to  a  case 
of  libel.  The  same  principles  will  apply.  When  a 
man  is  prosecuted  for  libel,  the  first  enquiry  is,  are 
the  alleged  words  proved?  In  this  case  thdt  point  is 
conceded.  The  next  question  then  is.  Do  the  words 
contain  a  libel  ?  11  they  do,  there  is  an  end  to  the 
matter.  The  man  is  convicted.  But  it  is  said,  that 
if  Mr.  Barnes  was  here  he  would  so  explain  a.s  to 
avoid  the  charge.  But  I  ask,  is  it  comiietent  to  a  nian 
who  has  put  forth  a  libel  to  plead  that  he  did  not  mean 
what  the  libel  he  published  does  mean?  Such  a  plea 
would  not  be  looked  at  for  a  moment.  The  man 
would  be  held  to  his  words :  and  the  words  would  be 
construed  by  common  sense.  I  do  not  care  if  Mr. 
Barnes  was  here  and  could  explain  in  his  own  way 
every  word  of  his  book :  the  book  must  speak  for 
iteeli'.  His  explanation  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
matter.  Now  that  the  words  of  his  book  do  contain 
the  errors  charged  I  tliink  has  been  fully  proved:  and 
as  they  are  all  combined  into  one  system,  I  hold  that 
the  whole  have  been  sustained. 


MVk.   BARMEI.  ^09 

Mr.  Hutchinson. 
I  think  the  charges  have  b^en  proved,  and  I  am 
prepared  to  sustain  the  appeal.  Nor  do  I  believe  that 
the  cade  has  been  prejudfjfd  a^aitist  Mr.  Barnes.  I 
have  been  in  his  company  once,  and  once  only  ;  and  I 
confess  that  he  ilien  nnpressed  me  as  a  very  amiable 
man,  and  1  felt  prejudiced,  ifai  all,  in  lavor  ol'liim  and 
his  book,  But  I  cannot  look  vviih  complacency  upon 
error.  That  the  doctrines  <!'  our  confession  are  the 
doctrines  of  the  Biitle  is  a  matter  not  now  to  be  ar- 
gueci  by  us,  any  more  than  we  should  iliink  of  arguing 
on  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  We  have  adopt- 
ed and  subscribed  it.  I  am  convinced  that  there  is  a 
pystem  of  error  in  Mr.  Birnes'sbook  wiiich  contra- 
venes these  doctrines.  Now  every  one  of  them  is  of 
importance  in  its  place.  If  we  may  deny  one  point, 
becaase  it  is  only  one,  we  may  go  on  and  deny  another 
and  anuther,  and  all  the  while  fr..te.rnize  with  those 
who  deny  the  whole,  until  at  len^ili  we  come  to  do 
the  same.  Then  we  shall  have  conceded  nil  that  the 
Deist  asks.  That  is  just  what  they  wonid  have. 
They  say  ''your  doclrmes  are  not  essential;  and  so 
says  Mr.  Barnes:  liere  tlicy  meet.  And  as  to  the  ef- 
fect, !-^e  assured  that  the  dissemination  of  error  will 
never  he  blessed  to  the  conversion  of  sinners,  or  the 
sanctificatioM  of  God's  people.  It  is  the  truth,  and 
the  truth  only,  which  sanctifies  men  and  prepares 
them  lor  lieaven. 

Mr.  Hill. 
Much  has  been  said,  of  hue,  about  prejudice  in  the 
minds  ol  the  members  of  the  Court:  and  il  the  love 
oftrutii  is  a  |)rtjudice,  and  a  sacred  regard  to  our 
etandards  arul  to  Li\e  word  of  GihI  is  a  prejudice,  theii 
I  acknowledge,  tiiis  day,  that  I  am  [)rejudiced  in  this 
cause.  Wliether  it  be  consiiiuiional  to  make  a  dis- 
tinction between  essentials  and  non  essentials  in  the 
word  of  God  I  shall  not  undertake  to  decide.  For 
myself  I  can  make  no  such  distinction.  1  believe  that 
every  thing  in  tliat  holy  book  holds  its  own  aiipropri- 
ate  place,  ulllioGi;h  every  sloiie  may  not  be  equally 
near  the  loundaiiori.  llany  one  shall  be  tak  :n  out, 
its  place  can  never  be  supplied.  Every  tiling  there 
is  ol  vast  magnitude  and  of  the  most  vital  importance 
to  the  church  of  Christ.^  Now  according  to  the  evi- 
dence we  have  had  be.lbre  us,  I  am  fully  convinced 
that  the  charges  liave  beca  most  lucidiy  and  satisfac- 
torily esiablislied.  I  believe  Mr.  Barnes'  book  does 
contain  errors  the  most  ilesiructive.  The  work  is, 
in  fact,  u  moiiey  mixture  of  Pelagianism,  Arminian- 
ism.  and.  1  had  almost  said,  of  yocmianism.  I  will 
not,  however,  go  so  lar  as  tl.at.  But  as  to  Pelagian- 
ism and  Arminianism,  what  1  say,  mighi  be  fu!iy  con- 
firmed from  an  i  xamination  ol  the  book.  As  lo  one 
doctrine  of  vital  imporiarne,  it  is  flatly  denied:  1 
18 


310  TRIAL  or 

mean  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  imputed 
riffhteouenees  of  Christ.  II  there  is  any  doctrine 
wnich  may  be  justly  styled  fundamental,  that  ib  one: 
Bnd  though  my  charily  might  go  as  lar  to  admit  that 
Bome  who  are  ignorant  of  it  may  be  saved,  yet  I  should 
hesitate  greatly  to  say  that  a  man  capable  ofstudying 
the  Scriptures  criticttlly,  and  yet  deliberately  deny- 
ing it,  could  allow  final  Hal '/ation.  1  should  at  least 
have  my  own  diffieu  ties  on  that  point.  I  might  be 
disposed  to  hope  well  of  some  of  the  Pharisees  in  our 
Savior's  day,  but  Jesus  Christ  hinisell"thought  it  was 
with  great  difficulty  they  could  be  saved  :  lor  ho  said 
expressly,  "  except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed 
the  righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  ye 
shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
It  is  alleged  that  Mr.  Barnes  is  not  duly  before  us, 
but  I  think  enouj'h  has  been  said  to  satisfy  the  court 
on  this  point.  He  has  been  belore  us,  and  he  might 
have  cast  himself  on  the  clemency  of  the  Synod,  bui 
he  let  his  Presbytery  take  their  own  course  in  with- 
holding their  records  Irom  the  court.  Why  Jias  he 
thus  acted  ?  in  my  humble  opinion  it  was  because 
he  was  conscious  that  he  could  not  support  his  book 
or  successfully  contradict  the  charges  against  it.  For 
Q  man  to  suppose  that  he  could  vindicate  such  a  book 
belore  a  Presbyterian  court  implies  a  degree  nl  igno- 
rance which  1  will  not  impute  to  him,  and  of  impu- 
dence which  would  but  ill  become  any  one  clothed 
with  the  clerical  office.  Another  argument  in  lavor 
of  the  accused  has  b  ;en  drawn  Irom  the  Biblical  Re- 
pertory. Princeton  is  a  very  high  source,  and  one 
which,  ever  since  1  have  known  it,  I  have  been  ac- 
customed to  venerate.  But  am  I  to  believe  that  those 
who  have  been  so  active  in  putting  down  Popery  in- 
tended I  should  be  regulated  by  their  opinion  further 
than  is  consistent  witn  truth  ?  None  can  expect  this. 
We  are,  thank  heaven,  untrammeled  by  the  authori- 
ty of  any  publication,  much  less  one  wliich  has  been 
put  forth  in  a  spirit  of  false  charity  that,  1  grieve  to 
eay,  has  infected  men  of  the  highest  standing.  It  is 
said  that  the  book  is  contradictory,  and  that  we  should 
respect  the  author  on  this  account.  1  know  not  whe- 
ther it  is  thus  contradictory  through  the  ignorance  of 
the  author  ;  or  whether  it  has  been  made  so  by  de- 
aign,  with  a  view  to  foist  in,  in  a  qualified  gradual 
and  covert  manner,  what  would  not  be  received  il 
presented  in  gross.  This  is  the  policy  of  errorisls  in 
the  present  day.  They  will  not  consent  (o  be  charged 
with  holding- and  teaching  a  particular  doctrine  which 
may  have  have  an  evil  repute,  so  they  put  it  in  very 
iCeneral  terms  and  expressions  of  an  equivocal  im- 
port that  may  be  interpreted  either  in  one  way  or  an- 
other, as  circumstances  may  require.  Tliere  are  few 
now-a-days  who  hold  a  correct  creed,  or  may  be  de- 


MR.  BARMEg.  ttU 

nominated,  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word,  Presbyteri- 
ans. Some  preach  their  own  pccuHarities,  and  cover 
over  a  standard  error  by  using  vague  and  general 
expressions.  That  seems  to  be  the  plan  pursued  in 
this  book:  and  it  is  perfectly  coneisient  with  tlie  tac- 
tics ol' those  who  aim  at  introducing  this  system  of 
error  into  our  churches.  I  trust  v/e  are  ready  to 
come  to  the  point.  I  hope  that  tlie  spirit  oi  brother- 
hood which  was  manifested  in  the  last  General  Ae- 
eembly  lias  been  travelling  this  way  :  and  that  the 
reform  which  was  conmienced  (here  will  be  carried 
on  and  carried  out  here.  In  executing  the  laws  of 
Christ's  kingdom  let  us  arrest  the  progress  ofa  book 
which  is  calculated  to  destroy  the  souls  of  men,  and 
it  may  bring  the  man  himsell  by  whom  the  injury  has 
been  done  to  seek  that  grace  which  will  lead  him  into 
the  truth. 
[Synod  here  took  a  recess  till  2  o'clock.] 

Mr.  M'KiNNEY. 
We  are  establishing  doctrines  which  our  own  and 
our  neighbor's  children  are  to  be  taught  for  centu- 
ries, perhaps,  to  come.  Thousands  on  thousands  of 
the  youth  of  our  land  are  concerned  in  tlie  judgment 
we  shall  pass.  If  we  pass  a  sentence  o(  acquittal, 
thousands  of  children  of  our  church  will  be  taught 
by  means  of  this  book,  and  will  imbibe  its  sentiments: 
but  if,  on  the  o'her  hand,  we  put  the  seal  of  con- 
demnation upon  iiR  auihor,  ihe  book  will  be  arrested 
in  its  progress,  and  all  those  thousands  will  be  taught 
in  a  dilicrent  manner.  Another  difliculty  in  our  way  is 
the  fear  that  it  will  be  said  we  are  deciding  under  a 
strong  prejudice;  and  it  requires  some  strength  of 
character  to  meet  this  charge.  The  press,  through- 
out three-fourths  of  our  land  will  be  against  us.  We 
must  prepare  to  meet  in  every  quarter  the  allegation 
that  we  proceeded  uiihout  regard  to  mercy  or  to 
right,  and  condemned  the  accused  without  allowing 
him  a  hearing.  Such  a  prospect  cannot  but  influence 
many  minds.  It  is  a  result  we  ought  to  look  at:  but 
not  so  as  on  that  account  to  fly  Irom  our  duty.  We 
must  keep  in  iiiirul  that  the  end  of  "the  command- 
ment is  charity  :"  but  we  are  not  to  forget  that  it  is 
charit.y  "  out  ol  a  pure  heart  and  faiih  unfeigned." 
Tliis  is  to  be  our  rule  of  action.  U  has  been  said  that 
it  is  better  that  ninely-nine  guilty  persons  should 
escape  than  that  one  innocent  nian  should  be  con- 
demned: but  if  we  neglect  to  do  our  duty  we  may 
cause  not  ninety  but  ninety  times  ninety  to  suffer. 
The  subject  divides  itself  into  several  questions:  1st. 
Was  the  decision  of  Presbytery  correct?    On  this 

2uestion  we  are  to  sustain  the  appeal,  or  not:  if  the 
ecision  was  correct  we  cannot  sustain  the  appeal  : 
but  whether  it  was  much  wrong  or  little  wrong,  then 


tl2  TRIAL   OF 

we  must  sustain  it.  Our  sustaining  the  appeal  doea 
not  imply  thfit  we  must  inflict  a  severe  censure  on 
tlic  accused,  but  only  that  we  condenin  his  errors. 
There  need  to  be  no  f^rcat  diiriculty  in  the  matter  ; 
for  the  decision  in  Uie  court  brlow,  instead  ol  con- 
denmins:,  justifies  everything  ni  tlie  book.  2.  TJie 
next  question  is,  how  I'ar  the  charges  have  been  sus- 
tained ?  I  have  little  hesi:alion  in  sayin?  that  the 
matters  charged  are  taught  in  the  book.  Jiut  then  it 
is  said  there  are  contradiciions  ia  the  booK  :  what  in 
aOirnied  in  one  place  is  contradicted  in  another  ;  and 
the  Biblical  Reiicrtory  Irus  been  quoted  as  evidence. 
But  what  is  the  otiject  ol"  i!ie  writer  in  the  Reper- 
tory? It  is  to  show  that  Mr.  Barnes  cannot  carry 
out  his  views  without  contr.idictin^  himself.  And  it 
will  be  so.  A  man  wiio  ad  v.ur.-es  erroneous  opinions 
will  almost  invojimiarily  introduce  the  common 
phrases  etnployed  in  treating  ol'  the  same  doctrines. 
It  requires  an  elurt,  in  I'.ict,  to  avoid  ilie  use  of  cor- 
rect language :  atid  at  tintes  he  will  forget  liimseif 
and  s()eak  unguardiHlly.  And  besides,  when  a  man  is 
departing  from  tae  iruiii  but  lias  not  wholly  Ibrsaken 
it,  his  s>siem  will  not  be  complete  at  once.  Hebe- 
gins,  and  having  advanced  some  way,  he  lalls  again 
mlo  correct  pin-aseology,  atid  liais  liis  work  comes  to 
be  lull  ofcoidiision  aiut  contradiciions.  But  he  does 
not  rest  there:  but  contmuing  his  downward  course, 
he  never  .-tops  till  at  last  he  takes  up  his  rest  m  the 
error  to  wliicti  he  has  lieen  tcntling.  W  e  are  called 
upon  to  dispose  of  the  errors  in  Mr.  Barnes'  book,  and 
indoi:!g  so  we  must  put  u|)on  'ts  language  our  own 
interpretation.  If  tiie  book  contracucls  itself,  and 
may  be  e.xplaincd  to  mean  either  one  tiung  or  the  op- 
posite, eacli  man  will  of  cour.^e  explain  it  in  his  own 
way,  and  will  take  such  i>aris  as  agree  with  his  own 
Tiews.  If  a  man  takes  iij)  Mr.  Barnes'  book  and  be- 
lieves him  to  ho!d  error,  he  will  :?ay  here  are  pas- 
sages whicii  are  clearly  erroneous,  and  he  will  inter- 
pret all  the  rest  of  the  book  by  these  pari.-^  of  ii.  So 
if  a  man  favors  Mr.  Barnes'  vievvs  he  wiil  say  here. 
are  passages  which  agree  wiili  the  confession,  and 
he  will  he  for  interpreting  all  the  rest  in  conformity 
with  these.  1  lldnk  we,  are  bound  to  take  up  the 
book  and  judge  of  its  language  by  the  simple  rule  ol 
common  sense.  A  man  would  not  write  such  things 
as  are  m  this  book  if  he  knows  the  use  of  language 
and  does  not  intend  to  convey  such  a  ineaniiig  as  the 
words  express.  I  urn  ready  to  vote  for  suelainin* 
the  appeal. 

Mr.  S.  Wilson. 

I  am  not  insensiole  to  ti.e  responsihilitiee  under 

•which  I  am  called  to  act:  at   the  same  time  I  am  not 

conscious  that  1  came  here  with  any   piejudici  s   but 

a  love  to  the  truth.  -Though  I  have  uo  pArlicular 


MR.    BARNE6.  1\^ 

acquaintance  with  ihe  accused  party,  yet  all  my 
leeiinf^s  toward  him  were  in  his  liivor.  Bui,  in  re 
gard  to  the  sentiment  contained  in  hi-s  book,  1  cannot 
say  that  my  acquaintance  has  been  so  ha|)py.  I  be- 
lieve it  contains  errors  which  are  extremely  danger- 
ous. The  system  tliere  taught,  us  far  as  it  is  laid 
down,  amounts  to  a  dilierent  doctrine,  "  another 
gospel."  It  seems  to  me  that  the  appellant  has  acted 
wisely  in  the  arrangement  of  his  charges.  The  first 
point,  is  that  all  sin  consists  in  action  :  then  that  faith 
is  an  aci  and  not  a  principle:  then,  in  accordance 
with  this,  that  we  are  not  cliargeable  with  Adams' 
transgression  ;  the  denial  of  this  is  part  and  parcel  of 
the  system.  Ami  so  with  ihe  rest.  All  the  points 
are  not  equally  injportant,  yet  they  all  constitute  one 
connected  system  ;  and  the  whole  form  a  battery, 
levelled  at  the  very  foundations  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Only  carry  out  these  principles  and  they 
subvert  the  whole  grounds  of  my  hope  in  Christ,  I 
think  that  the  appellant  has  fully  sustained  all  the 
charges  ;  though  1  do  not  say  that  he  has  established 
all  with  equal  clearness.  Some  of  them  are  inferen- 
tial ;  but  tlie  inlerenee  is  so  clear  that  none  can  doubt 
it.  If  1  deny  an  aliirmalive  proposition,  it  is  tanta- 
mount to  aliirming  the  opposite.  We  are  bound 
logically,  to  draw  this  itiference.  But  even  suppos- 
ing that  all  the  charges  are  not  fundameiial,  still 
they  all  impugn  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church:  tliey  arc  all  inconsistent  with  that  Ibrm  of 
sound  words  which  contains  the  essential  doctrines 
of  the  Scripture.  And  certainly,  if  a  man  impugns 
publicly  the  standards  of  faifh  he  has  sworn  lo  main- 
tain, he  cannot  complain  if  he  is  denied  a  standing  in 
the  church  which  holds  them.    On  the  whole  1  am 

fiersuaded  that  this  book  is  calculated  to  poison  that 
ountain  of  divine  truth  from  which  as  a  church  we 
all  should  drink  :  and  I  hold  it  to  be  our  duty  to  in- 
tercept the  polluted  stream,  before  it  spreads  its  con- 
sequences far  and  wide  through  the  land.  We  are 
bound  by  our  ordination  vows  to  maintain  the  purity 
as  well  as  the  peace  of  the  church.  Truth  was 
given  for  the  illumination  and  sanctification  of  the 
church  and  of  the  world  :  and  if  you  allow  its  streams 
to  be  mixed  with  poison,  and  thus  to  flow  through 
the  length  and  breadth  of  our  Jerusalem  you  will  al- 
low the  dearest  interests  of  men  to  be  most  seriously 
periled.  But  it  has  been  said  that  Mr.  Barnes's 
standing  is  such  that  we  ought  not  to  try  him  at  all: 
and  some  have  even  said  that  if  our  church  constitu- 
tion requires  us  to  cut  ofi'  such  a  man  as  this,  they 
are  for  getting  another  and  a  better  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible. That  has  been  said.  And  now  moderator,  if 
it  is  como  to  this,  and  it  is  our  constitution  which 
thus  prevents  the  spreading  of  erroneous  doctrine,  it 
18* 


214  TKIAL  OF 

ia  time  for  this  Synod  to  ppeak  out,  and  to  express  its 
«entimcius  in  such  a  manner  as  shiill  be  etleclually 
felt  in  our  churches.  If  we  are  to  sacrifice  our 
Htandards  and  all  our  views  oldivine  iruih  oui  of  de- 
ference for  one  man,  it  is  time  to  irive  up.  We  have, 
since  tlie  openiiur  ol  tliis!  cause,  been  frequeniiy  re- 
ferred to  puulic  o[)itiion  as  ihe  rule  which  ou^hi  to 
ifovern  our  procet-uing-s.  No  doulu  we  ouj^ht  lo  have 
ii  decent  respect  for  ihe  public  mind,  in  this  as  in  all 
other  niattcrf?:  yet  our  paramount  duty  is  to  have 
regard  lo  truth,  and  not  to  ^o  out  of  these  wails  to 
enquire  what  tiie  world  says.  Let  us  rather  go  to 
scrii)ture  and  to  the  throne  ol  yrnce.  Let  us  perlbrm 
our  duty  fully  and  learlest^l),  and  leave  ilie  world  to 
say  what  they  please.  If  that  wholesome  (!i?cipiiiie 
wiiich  was  meant  to  builil  up  tiie  churcli  siiall  iirove 
tlie  means  ol  puliini^  down  and  (iestroying  it,  the 
fault  wdl  not  be  ours,  .i  laitlil'ul  ap|)licaLion  of  the 
proper  means  i.sall  that  is  in  our  power  ;  and  it  will, 
in  the  end,  prove  the  most  successiul  mode  of  es- 
tablishiiiir  the  church  on  sure  Ibundaiions.  Dr.  Jun- 
kin  has  satisfied  me  in  respect  lo  several  of  the  counts 
in  the  irnlxtment  he  hris  prelerrcd,  and  when  the 
time  shall  come  to  Jiive  tiie  final  vole  1  trust  his  ap- 
peal will  be  sustained. 

Mr.  Moore. 
I  had  made  some  e.xamiri  ition  of  Mr.  Barnes'a 
book  before  I  came  to  this  [louse:  and  since  then  I 
have  li.^tened  with  pleasure  iuid  1  trust  with  jirolit 
also  to  the  argumeni  cf  the  appeil.mt.  1  thinl<  he  has 
fully  sustained  six  of  liw'  charj^es.  His  arjjument  in 
reference  to  the  others  I  did  not  hear,  bavins  been 
diuained  from  the  House  by  indisposition.  Tiie  vviiole 
affair  has  been  very  painful  to  me.  1  have  known 
brother  Barnes  for  these  fifteen  years  past;  1  liave 
always  felt  a  warm  friendship  lor  him,  altfiou^h  I 
never  hod  what  maybe  termed  nn  intimate  I'cquainl- 
ance.  But  thouijh  1  love  him  much,  1  love  Christ 
better.  I  have  paid  some  attention  to  the  Epistle  lo 
the  Romans  havinj?  myself  lectured  upon  tlie  whole 
of  It,  and  1  ihink  there  are  serious  discrepancies  be- 
tween Mr.  Barnes  book  and  the  te.xl  he  prolesscd  to 
explain.  It  Las  been  said  that  we  have  but  a  doubt- 
ful jurisdiction  over  the  case,  yet  it  is  admitted  that 
we  have  enough  to  have  empowered  us  to  reler  it  to 
a  superior  court:  but  1  should  think  if  we  c:in  go  so 
far,  we  can  go  ihe  whole.  The  errors  in  the  book 
are  some  of  them  Arminian.  and  others  either  semi- 
Pelagian  or  Pelagian  etitirely.  True  there  are 
other  passages  which  speak  a  difiereni  language: 
but  what  then?  The  oracle  it  seems  is  of  dubious 
import:  it  may  bear  one  sense  or  bear  another: 
which  shall  we  follow?  I  can  only  believe  what  hae 
the  imprimatur  of  truth  upon  it.    The  rest  1  mutt 


MR.   BARME».  2121 

eondemn.    I  had  supposed  tliaf.  the  wIioIk  case  would 
have  been  referred  to  a  hi;gher  tJoiirt,  ;ind  I  wuk  prf- 

rarcd  to  vole  lor  eiicii  a  course:  but  I  am  not  now. 
have  no  predilections  vvliir.h  will  sway  me  in  lavor 
of  the  appellee,  or  airaiiist  him.  So  far  as  he  can  re- 
move any  of  the  eharii^fs  hy  explanation  1  should  re- 
joice to  hear  it:  hut  I  am  ol"opinion  ihal  the  appellant 
has  fully  established  the  jieneral  charge. 
Mr.  M';KNiGnT  Williamson. 
After  exaniininy-  at^  ciotcly  as  1  ( ouul  the  evidence 
which  liiis  l)cen  suhnn't(cd  lo  us,  I  ;ini  coiLstrained  to 
eustain  the  ai)peal.  When  I  review  the  Inn^ruaire  of 
my  ordination  vow.  I  find  ainonj?  oilier  cpieries  put  to 
me  in  that  solemn  hour,  ilii.s  cpiesiion:  "'  Do  you  sin- 
cerely receive  and  adopt  ihe  Oonlession  of  Faith  of 
litis  church,  as  contaiaiui?  the  sjsieiu  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scripiures  ?"  I  believed  I  could 
answer  then,  and  1  think  I  cm  answer  now,  px  ani- 
wo,  that  I  do  aiiprove  ii  :  and  I  am  constrained  to 
think  in  view  of  what  has  been  read  to  us  Irom  Mr. 
Barnes's  lioolf,  that  what  is  there  lauii'ht  is  not  in 
accordance  wiih  that  Confession,  or  witii  the  declar- 
ations of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  I  he  word  of  God.  On  the 
eontrary,  thi;  lauHuaire  of  tlie  Confession  is  openly 
attacked.  Now  ihis  book  professes  to  be  intended 
for  the  use  of  Sabhalh  scliool  teachers  and  the  chil- 
dren in  our  Sabbath  scfiools,  and  it  certainly  does  in- 
Blil  principles  which  are  opci^ly  and  directly  at  war 
with  the  Coid'ession  of  Faith  lUid  the  Catechisms  of 
our  church.  If  its  desijjn  succeeds,  it  wiil  raii^e  up  a 
host  of  men  prepared  and  disposed  to  uproot  the  doc- 
trine which  lias  hitherto  distinguished  ilie  Presbyte- 
rian church. 

Mr.  Olmstead. 

I  have  had  a  copy  ol  ttie  ouuic  for  some  time;  and 
I  think  the  best  speech  I  can  make  in  re'erence  to 
the  case— I  hope  others  wdl  follow  the  example — ia 
to  say,  "  no  remarks." 

[Many  did  loUow  the  example.] 
Mr.  Allen. 

I  am  not  goin^  to  make  a  speech;  but  as  it  is  my 
constitutional  ri^ht  to  give  the  reasons  for  my  vote, 
I  shall  occupy  two  or  three  minutes  in  doing  so.  I 
think  the  appellant  has  entirely  sustained  his  charges, 
I  cannot  bring  myself  to  doubt  on  this  subject ;  or  to 
believe  tliat  he  can  have  mistaken  the  sentiments 
Mr.  Barnes  has  promulsrated  ;  and  i  consider  those 
he  has  enumerated  as  forming  the  essential  raris  of 
a  system  'vhich  had  its  birth  in  two  very  renowned 
places;  the  hist  is  New-Haven;  and  tlie  other  is 
Poplar  Town.*  [a  laugh.]  The  nature  of  the  charges 

♦Poplar  Town  is  the  station  of  Rev.  Mr.  Campbell,  a  mem- 
ber of  Synod. 


^16  TRIAL    OF 

;is  well  ;is  the  cliTriicier  of  the  man.  may  be  prelly 
well  judiTcd  ol'  Iroiii  the  otlcirts  wiiicti  have  been 
niude  to  defend  liim.  We  cunnoi  have  a,  belter  proof 
(if  this  than  the  relerence  which  was  made  lo  ihe 
Hiolical  Repertory  and  the  auiiiorify  of  Princeton. 
Now  we  know  what  the  eentiments  o|  Princeton  are 
in  relation  to  liiis  matter.  In  Dr.  Miller's  letters  we 
have  a  |)ic-ture,  fully  drawn,  of  this  syeteni  oi  doc- 
trinal oi)ini'jns  :  and  ihc  author  of  thai  work  declares, 
in  terms,  thai  iho.'-e  who  h-^ld  these  errors  and  yet 
Kuhscribe  to  the  Cotd'ession  of  Faith,  are  guilty  of 
perjury.  And  ihe  same  book  declares  that  there 
are  ministers  in  the  Presbyterian  church  wlio  liold 
those  sentiments.  He  fixes  this  sli^Miia  on  t lie  New 
Schoolmen:  and  the  errors  in  Mr.  Barnes's  book 
form  a  part  of  the  New  S(  liool  system.  I  have  no 
dilfirulty  in  declarii);^  that  in  njy  view  they  are  most 
dangerous.  There  was  one  ihinj^  vvliich,  at  first,  bore 
witii  great  wei;;ht  ot\  mv  mind.  1  saw  ihal  the  er- 
rors were  there:  bnl  then  it  was  said,  and  truly,  that 
the  book  contained  passages  Ironi  w  lieh  just  the  op- 
posite mis'ht  be  proved.  Prolessor  Ilodge  lias  shewn 
most  clearly  some  of  these  contradictions.  This  was 
adifiiculiy  with  me  lor  a  considerable  lime  :  but  it  is 
fiO  no  longer.  I  reganl  Mr.  Barnes's  book  just  as  I 
do  the  work  of  Taylor.  Edwards  shews  in  his  book 
against  Taylor  that  Taylor  teaches,  in  lact,  both 
sides.  While  he  undertakes  to  deny  original  sin,  he 
does  in  some  places  prove  the  very  contniry  of  this. 
Juslso  it  is  with  Mr.  Barnes.  He  means  to  deny  the 
system  taught  in  our  standards ;  but  ht;  has  also  said 
things  which  lead  to  directly  the  reverse.  But  no 
man  could,  on  this  account,  think  of  cleaiing  him  of 
such  a  de:~ign,  any  more  than  for  the  .-ame  reason  he 
could  acquit  Taylor.  I  know  he  has  taught  in  some 
passages  what  comports  with  cur  system,  but  the 
main  design  ol"  his  book  is  to  contradict  and  over- 
throw it.  He  has  fallen  into  the  contradictions  una- 
voidably, and  tlirouf;h  mistake.  I  therefore  hold  him 
guilty  on  all  the  charges. 

Mr.  Todd. 
I  came  here  with  a  mind  entirely  unprejudiced, 
and  have  listened  to  the  course  ol  the  trial  with  close 
attention.  What  little  I  knew  of  Mr.  Barnes  dis- 
posed me  in  his  favor.  I  had  met  him  in  Synod,  and 
was  disposed  to  consider  him  as  an  aniiable  and  ex- 
cellent man.  But  since  I  have  been  here  and  have 
listened  lo  the  charges,  and  the  proof  adduced  in  sup- 
port of  them,  I  am  constrained  to  say  that  I  believe 
them  lo  have  been  fully  proved.  On  the  competency 
ol  this  court  to  take  up  and  issue  the  appeal  I  have 
no  doubt  or  difficulty.  As  lo  the  opposite  passages 
in  tlie  book,  I  never  in  my  life  read  a  book  ol  any  de- 
ecription  that  had  not  something  good  in  it.    I  have 


MR.    BARNS8.  ^1'' 

never  read  Mr.  Barnes'  l)ool< ;  hut  adiiiiitinfj  the  paa- 
Hages  vvliicli  have  heen  quoicil  lo  tie  contained  in  it, 
even  thouuli  all  the  reel  were  ever  so  pood  aiiti  ever 
HO  eoinid,  I  eliould  voie  to  condt  mn  il.  ^Ihis  jk  jv 
book  lor  ilic  une  of  our  youth  to  form  the  niinde  of 
those  who  are  lo  i'l-llow  us,  and  in  at  least  tome  parts 
ofiLthe  fund  imental  dociriiiert  ol' our  holy  rciipiou 
are  denied.  1  do  ihink  its  doctrinal  posiiion.s  contain 
pross  heresy.  It  i.<  said  he  is  a  man  ol  talents  and 
of  an  amia'  le  and  excelietil  private  character  :  I  fiave 
no  reason  to  doubt  this  ;  l)ui  as  he  is  a  man  ol'  dis- 
cernment he  must  have  known  what  it  was  that  lie 
put  into  his  book.  He  certainly  liad  a  lull  opportu- 
nity to  consider  them,  tor  he  was  ailmonished  five 
years  ago  tiiai  he  had  e.xpressed  sentiments  at  war 
with  our  standards  and  with  the  Dihle.  Knowing 
this  he  has  persevered  :  he  still  adiiert  s  to  the  same 
views:  he  has  expres.~ed  them  iiere,  and  he  means 
lo  express  thim.  1  do  not  imjuiiin  his  ri^lu  of  opi- 
nion. He  has  an  indubitable  n^iit.  to  liold,  and  to 
express  and  spread  abroad  these  or  any  other  senti- 
ments, but.  not  at  the  same  time  to  retain  his  stand- 
in;;  as  a  Presbyterian  minister.  He  had  belter  come 
out,  like  an  honest  man,  and  say  at  once,  I  do  hold 
nentiments  at  war  with  your  coidession,  1  no  lonper 
believe  in  tiial  coniession,  and  1  renounce  it  openly. 
That  would  be  the  part  n[  an  honest  and  a  pious 
man:  hut  I  do  detest  the  idea  ol"  a  nian's  professing 
to  adhere  to  a  certain  standard  of  relijrious  belief, 
and  at  the  same  time  writintj  against  it,  and  preach- 
in?  against  it.  Let  Mr.  Barnes  be  honest.  II'  he  is 
no  longer  satisfied  witli  the  lanjiuage  ol'  our  church, 
let  him  tell  his  brethren  how  he  feels,  and  ask  to 
wiihdraw  peaceably  from  our  connection,  and  not 
keep  us  all  in  commotion  a.=  he  has  done.  The  high 
Btaniiing  of  the  iiiaii  and  of  his  congregation  presents 
no  reason  why  he  ought  to  be  deaTt  with  lightly  :  on 
the  contrary  it  forms  the  Very  reason  why  we  are 
bound  to  brini?  the  disci[)!ine  of  the  church  fully  to 
bear  upon  him.  Let  him  not,  under  any  sanction 
from  us,  stand  in  the  midst  ol  the  metropolis  of  the 
Ktate  spreading  his  oilious,  detestable,  abominable 
doctrine,  a  doctrine  wiiich  goes  to  destroy  the  lonnda- 
tions  of  human  hope,  and  lo  undermine  and  lay  waste 
that  f-iir  slrurlure  of  Pre^ibyterianism  which  the 
wisdom  of  our  lathers  Isas  erected. 
Mr.  DuNL.\P. 
I  have  never,  for  eight  years  that  1  have  had  a 
peat  in  Synod,  had  anything  to  say  which  I  thouglil 
worthy  of  being  communicated  to  such  a  body.  On 
this  occasion,  hov\ever,  1  will  say  a  few  words.  My 
first  remark  is,  that  as  a  court  we  have  nothing  to 
do  with  Mr.  Barnes's  belief — but  otily  with  his 
words.    It  is  said,  I  know,  that  he  does  not  intend  to 


tI8  TRIAL  OF 

convey  the  ideas  he  hae  conveyed,  and  this  impres- 
eion  per|)lexe«  ihe  mind  of  some  brethren.  It  per- 
plexed mine  for  eoine  time:  and  I  tiiou^ht  if  that 
aifliculiy  were,  removed  my  mind  would  be  clear. 
Bui  tlie  way  to  jiidpe  of  any  sermon  is  to  ask  the 
people  that  lieur  it.,  not  the  man  who  preaches.  Sup- 
nosing  the  lanj^uafje  which  has  been  read  to  us  from 
Mr.  Barnes's  l»ook  were  used  in  a  sermon:  and  you 
were  then  to  ask  the  people  that  heard  hin\  what 
doctrine  Mi .  B.  meant  to  preach  ?  If  they  iii  reply 
stated  the  truth  according  to  our  standards,  why 
there  would  he  an  end  of  the  matter.  But  where  a 
book  is  puiiliiihed  to  the  world,  it  Jiocs  to  the  world  : 
and,  till'  (luestionfor  us  is,  'how  will  lliey  understand 
it?'  If,  h(  vever,  the  experiment  has  been  tried,  wo 
find  that  every  body  understands  if  in  a  certain  way, 
then  we  know  what  the  book  teaches.  That  experi- 
ment has  been  fully  tried.  It  has  been  my  privilege 
to  see  the  |)ractical  bearings  of  this  very  system.  I 
learned  it  from  the  people  themselves  who  embraced 
it.  When  I  came  among  them  and  presented  the 
claims  of  this  church  for  aid,  they  told  me  we  cannot 
give,  and  they  gave  me  the  reason,  and  that  reason 
was  almost  a  literal  quotation  from  Mr.  Barnes's 
book.  They  used  his  very  language.  1  say  that  it  is 
a  system  :  a  practical  system  in  tr.e  church.  Go 
where  it  is  and  both  elders  and  people  will  soon  satisfy 
you  how  the  doctrine  is  understood:  Nor  do  ihey 
go  merely  as  far  aa  this  book  goes:  no:  they  carry 
the  tiling  out.  VVc  have  been  told  here  that  Mr. 
Barnes  does  not  denv  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin; 
but  inquire  where  liis  book  is  read,  and  they  will 
speedily  convince  you  how  tlie  matter  is.  They  ust^ 
his  very  words.  They  will  tell  you  that  to  talk  of 
God's  imputing  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  is  a  libel 
on  the  divine  government — that  it  is  horrid  even  to 
think  of  any  human  being's  coining  into  existence 
nnder  what  will  prevent  him  from  doing  all  the  du- 
ties required  of  liiiii:  and  if  you  press  them  with 
scripture,  they  will  u~e  all  Mr.  Barnes'  arguments 
about  the  injustice  of  punisliing  men  for  an  action 
done  thousiiiids  of  years  bel()r(!  they  were  liorn. 
Tiien  you  will  hear  tiiat  all  sin  lies  in  action  :  that  it 
is  action  and  action  alone  which  coiisiilutes  charac- 
ter. When  you  ask  tliem  how  God  created  man, 
they  will  tell  you  that  he  created  him  without  any 
ctiaracter  at  all,  but  with  liberty  to  form  sucli  a  cha- 
r.uuer  as  he  pieas"d.  They  expressly  deny  that 
Adam's  coiuluct  afflicted  his  ollsitring  in  any  way. 
Tliey  feel  the  dilTiculiy  arising  from  the  fact  that  all 
men  do  necessarily  sin,  but  tliev  deny  that  this  ia 
consiquence  of  any  thing  done  by  Adam:  and  insist 
tliat  men  now  sin  just  as  the  angels  did  at  the  begin- 
ning.   If  you  ask,  what  do  you  do  then  with  infants? 


MR.    BARNES.  lit 

lliey  will  answer  that  infants  have  no  cliaracter.  I 
wusfitrnck  with  what  was  said  when  I  prrsscd  upon 
Mr.  Dutficki — I  he<i;  pardon — i  mean  on  Mr.  Barnes 
the  truili  that  where  is  no  trani--sref-£ion  there  ran 
be  no  conileninaiion,  and  of  course  rio  niirdon.  He 
eaid  that  inl'antc;  ai  death  went  immediately  to  heaven. 
I  asked  him  over  what  do  they  rejoice  in  heaven,  it 
they  never  were  pardoned?  how  can  they  praise  God 
for  redemption?  He  replied  that  inlants  rejoice  in 
this  just  as  the  angels  do;  not  hccause  ihey  have 
any  perswnal  interest  in  it;  but  they  look  at  it  as  a 
display  of  the  divine  perfections.  I  say  aj^ain,  it  is  a 
system.  11' there  is  no  sin  till  men  hejrin  to  act,  no 
propepsily  to  sin,  no  necessity  ol  hreakin;;^  the  law, 
and  il'  it  is  a  libel  on  God's  governnient  fur  any  one 
to  say  he  cannot  keep  the  whole  law  iteriectly,  what 
will  be  the  end  of  such  a  system  ?  I  answer.  Perfec- 
tion. That  is  the  tendency  and  will  be  the  issue  of 
it.  I  have  heard  the  perfcciiDtiisls.  1  have  met  with 
those  who  were  .so  perlect  ihat  they  could  not  sin: 
(/hrist  was  in  them  and  they  in  Christ,  and  they 
could  not  sin.  Thi.s  is  the  end  of  these  thing.*.  It  ia 
only  the  new  system  carried  out.  We  have  ihe  de-^ 
monstration  of  ihis  in  the  lacl  tiiat  a  large  poriion  of 
the  churclies  under  the  care  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly are  looking  to  the  issue  of  this  trial  as  ihat  which 
is  to  decide  the  question  whether  they  shall  continue 
inconnexion  with  the  Presbyierian  Church.  II  Mr. 
Barnes  and  Dr.  Beecher  are  not  permitted  to  retain 
their  standing,  we  leave  the  Body.  That  is  the  rea- 
son why  the  Presbyterian  church  cannot  operate  in 
that  region  of  country. 

Mr.  Landis  here  interposed.  1  ask  the  next  brother 
when  he  combats  a  shadow  to  state  when  and  where 
and  by  whom  such  an  assertion  has  been  made  upon 
this  floor. 

Mr.    GfLI?KRT. 

When  the  calling  of  the  roll  commenced,  I  did  not 
expect  to  occupy  more  than  five  minutes:  but  so 
many  speeches  have  been  made  by  brethren  on  the 
other  side,  while  scarce  any  have  yet  been  heard 
from  ours,  that  I  must  now  bespeak  the  patience  of 
the  Synod  for  a  somewhat  longer  time  than  1  had  at 
first  intended.  The  rule  under  which  we  are  now 
acting  declares  that  alter  the  parties  shall  have  with- 
drawn "  the  clerk  shall  call  the  roll,  that  every 
member  may  have  an  oi)portunity  to  express  his 
opinion  on  the  case ;  afier  which  the  final  vote  shall 
be  taken."  1  quote  this  because  it  has  been  said  by 
some  ol  those  who  have  spoken  that  the  only  question 
to  which  we  can  speak  is,  whether  the  charges 
against  the  accused  have  been  sustained.  We  are 
not  confined  within  such  narrow  limits;  but  have 
\iberty  lo  speak  to  "the  case" — to  tfie  whole  case. 


VIO  TRIAL   OF 

The  case  is  an  appeal  (roni  a  decision  of  Presbytery, 
anti  it  virtually  asks  us  to  coiidomn  Mr.  Barnes  as  a 
heretic  and  liis  IVeshyiery  wiili  him.  Beiuri!  I  can 
vole  iliis,  1  miiut  he  Fiuis-lied  in  respect  to  lour  points. 

1.  That  the  appeal  lias  been  reo[ularly   proseculed: 

2.  That  all  (he  evidence  wliich  was  before  the  lower 
court,  is  helore  Ihir^  (ourt :  3.  That  the  course  of  trial 
has  been  perl'eclly  fair  and  orderly  :  and  4.  that  the 
charges  have  been  .eusiained  by  proof.  As  we  have 
a  lart^e  large  latitude  ol  remark,  1  shall  throw  myself 
upon  the  indulgence  of  my  brethren,  if,  in  the  course 
of  my  ohservaiions  I  niiiy  say  anytiiing  that  thai! 
conflict  with  votes  of  the  Synod. 

My  h"rpi  eiujuiry  then  is,  Has  the  appeal  been  or- 
derly and  prnpyrly  prosecuted'?  1  sujipose  it  will  be 
granted  that  iI'Dr.  Juid\in  had  appealed  lo  the  Synod 
ofN.  Jer.-ev  or  liie  Synod  of  Ohio,  it  would  not  have 
been  orderly:  even  if  the  Assembly  had  declared  that 
from  and  alter  ilie  year  1840  ihe  Churches  and  Pres- 
byteries wiiiiin  the  Synod  ol  Delaware  should  belong 
to  either  of  these  Synods. 

Moderator.  The  Chair  has  already  declared  that 
any  arjiument  on  the  course  of  procetdinir  is  at  this 
point  oi  time  out  of  order.  Synod  h-avinfr  already 
seiiled  those  poin's.  iNeveriheless  I  hope  the  Synod 
will  bear  vviih  broilier  Gilbert. 

Mr.  G  Isiiail  not  occupy  more  Ihnn  five  minutCB 
at  any  rate.  !  do  not  call  in  qu<  stion  your  decision. 
I  say  it  would  not  have  been  in  order  to  appeal  lo  the 
Synod  of  New-Jcrscy.  becaise  that  was  not  ihe  body 
superior  lo  ihe  Second  Presbytery  ol  Philadelphia. 
"Wlien  I  -peak  of  tiie  superior,  I  mean  of  course  im- 
mediately suoerior,  a  ho.-!y  lo  whi<  n  ihe  inlerior  court 
belongs.  The  suj  erisr  body  to  which  an  ajtpeal  from 
the  decision  of  Presbytery  regrularly  lay,  was  the 
Synod  of  Delaware:  and  Dr.  junkin  had  no  more 
right  to  appeal  to  any  other  body  Hum  lo  the  Synod 
ol  New-Jersey.  li  the  General  Assembly  had  in- 
tended iliat  that  Presbytery  should  lie  subordinate  to 
another  Synod,  tliey  would  have  said  so:  and  in  that 
case  the  Pr<^sbytery  would  have  I  ecn  anienalde  to 
Buch  Synod:  but  the  Assembly  said  no  su<-h  thing, 
anil  of  course  the  I'resbyiery  was  not  amenable  to 
any  other  body.  If  this  Synod,  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, has  jurisdiction  of  the  cat-e,  ii  must  be  under 
an  order  of  the  Assembly  :  but  no  order  of  Assembly 
Baid  that  Presbytery  should  be  under  this  Synod  while 
its  own  Synod  of  Delaware  was  still  in  htiu^.  And 
here  let  me  make  an  occasional  remark  in  vindica- 
tion of  the  Presbytery.  The  shape  of  the  order,  as 
at  first  proposed  in  Assembly,  was  that  Ihe  Presbyte- 
ries forming  the  Synod  of  Delaware  should  be  unit- 
ed with  the  Synod  of  Philndeljjhia  ;  and  had  ihe  or- 
der passed  in  that  shape,  none  would  have  i<retended 


MR.    BARNES.  221 


ihat  this  body  had  not  full  jurisdiction  of  the  case: 
but.  its  form  ^yas  changed  :  not  by  the  proposal  of  any 
member,  fctwrftne  whom  our  brethren  here  have  ne- 
ver accused  of  jurisdictioo^  It  was  Dr.  Miller  who  ujt 
proposed  the  amendment  of  uniting  "at  and  alter"/f^ 
the  meeting  of  this  Synod,  so  that  there  wag  no  cun-' 
ning  or  manoevuring  of  the  Second  Presbytery  in 
that  matter.  All  the  power  given  in  the  order  to 
this  Synod,  is  to  organize  itself  anew  by  receiving 
the  other  Synod  into  union,  and  then  to  take  mea- 
sures to  divide  again  by  some  other  line  of  demarca- 
tion. If  the  order  had  said  that  from  and  alter  the 
1st  day  of  September  the  two  Synods  should  become 
one,  none  could  have  doubted  that  on  that  day  the 
Synod  of  Delaware  would  have  become  defunct,  and 
its  power  at  an  end.  But  the  order  specified  the  last 
Wednesday  of  October  :  and  therefore,  until  the  last 
Wednesday  of  October  the  Synod  of  Delaware  waa 
in  existence,  with  all  its  powers  in  full  vigor,  and 
might  have  been  called  at  any  time  by  the  Modera- 
tor. Our  constitution  gives  such  a  right  to  all  the 
Moderators  of  our  judicatories,  without  distiction.  In 
the  chapter  "  on  Moderators,"  it  is  declared  that  the 
Moderator  "  shall  likewise  be  empowered,  on  any 
extraordinary  emergency,  to  convene  the  judicatorxj 
bv  his  circular  letter,  before  the  ordinary  time  of 
meeting."  It  has  been  objected  that  if  this  interpre- 
tation is  good,  the  Moderator  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly may  call  a  pro  re  nata  meeting  of  tiiat  body  :  I 
reply  that  he  cannot,  because  after  the  As.?embly  has 
adjourned,  it  is  defunct:  there  is  neitiier  Moderator 
to  call,  nor  Assembly  to  be  called  :  but  Synods  and 
Presbyteries  are  permanent  bodies:  and  they  may 
be  constitutionally  called  together  as  is  provided  in 
the  rule  I  have  read.  As  to  the  argument  drawn 
from  the  fact  that  the  Synod  contained  only  three 
Presbyteries,  and  therefore  could  not  issue  an  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  one  of  them,  it  rests  upon  a  mis- 
take as  to  the  nature  of"a  Synod.  Our  book  declares 
that  "  as  a  Presbytery  is  a  convention  of  the  bishops 
and  elders  within  a  certain  district,  so  a  Synod  is  a 
convention  of  the  bishops  and  elders  within  a  larger 
district,  including  at  least  three  Presbyteries."  Again 
it  is  provided  that  "  ar.y  seven  members  belonging  lo 
the  Synod,  who  shall  convene  at  the  time  and  place 
of  meeting,  \v\i\\  as  many  elders  as  may  be  present, 
shall  be  a  quorum  to  transact  Synodicnl  business: 
provided  not  more  than  three  of  the  said  members 
belong  to  one  Presbytery."  And  again  it  is  said: 
"  The  Synod  (every  Synod)  has  power  to  receive 
and  issue  all  appeals  regularly  brought  up  from  the 
Presbyteries."  Tlius  we  see  that  a  Synod  difTers 
from  a  Presbytery  only  in  its  greater  extent.  As  to 
the  Presbytery  appealed  from  being  out  of  the  Synod, 
19 


222  TRIAL  or 

it  is  not  the  fact,  any  more  than  a  meirber  ofa  judi- 
catory who  has  spoken  twice  is  out  ol'tlie  judica:ory 
because  he  cannot   speait  again  on  the  eanie  t^uhjecl 
without    special   leave.      The)^   are   in  the   Synod, 
thoush  they  cannot  vote  in  their  own  cause.    But  a 
Synod  with  three   Presbyteries    lw.3   precisely  the 
same  powers  as  a  Synod  with  ten  Presbyteries.    It 
can    "issue  all  appeals"  regularly  brought  up.    I 
think  that  Dr.  Junkin  ought  to  have  appealed  at  the 
time  ol'Mr.  Barnes's  acqjittal.lo  the  Synod  of  Dela- 
ware.   But  it  is  said  he  was  prevented   from  doing 
so.     How  prevented?  by  the  advice  ot" the  Presbyte- 
ry as  a  body  '^  or  of  some  of  its  members  ?  Could  Dr. 
JFunkin  be  so  easily  turned  about,  this  way  or  that  7 
and  by  the  advice  of  men  who  dilfercd  from  him  in 
views,   too  7    Prevented?     Can    you    prevent  Mr. 
Barnes  from  appealing  to  the  Assembly?    No  mure 
could  the  Presbytery  prevent  D.'-.  Junkin  from   ap- 
pealing to  the  Delaware  Synod.      He  might  have 
done  it,  and  he  ought  to  have  done  it.     And  as  to  de- 
nying the  jurisdiction  of  this  Synod,  the  Assembly's 
Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  is  not  alone  guilty. 
It  is  equally  the  act  of  all  the  Presbyteries  composing 
the  Delaware  Synod:  they  all   question  your  juris- 
diction as  much  as   the  Presbytery  o!"  Philadelphia. 
And  ihey  act  sincerely.    Nor  did  tliis  denial  orisinale^ 
in  the  Second    Presbytery,  but  in  another.    Now  if 
this  case  comes  up  before  us,  it  mns'    be  either  by 
reference,  or  by  complaint,  or  by  our  right  of  review 
and  control,  or  by  appeal.    Itdoec  not  come  by  refe- 
rence, nor  by  comjjiaint :  but  it  is  contended  that  we 
have  jurisdiction  of  it  in  the  way  ofreviowand  control. 
I  deny  this,  and  contend  that  our  whole  power  in  the 
matter  is  to  remit  the  case  to  the  lower  court.  But  it 
lias  been  taken  up  through   the   influence  of  eome 
whose  will  seems  to  be  law  here,  and  who  have  de- 
sired in  their  hearts  to  push  it  to  the  oxrreme.  On  the 
ground  of  review  and  control  what  styvs  our  constitu- 
tion?   "It  is  the  duty   ol  every  Judicatory   above  a 
church  session,  at  least  once  a  year,  to  review  the 
records  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Judicatory  ne.vt  be- 
low."   And  again  :  "  If  m  the  course  of  the  review 
cases  of  irregular  proceedings  may  be  found  so  disre- 
putable and  iiijurioiig  as  to   demand  the  interference 
of  the  superior  Judicatory.    In  cases  of  (his  kind  the 
inferior  Judicatory  may  be  required  to  review  and 
correct,  its  proceedings."    Anda?:ain:    "  When  any 
important    delinquency  or  grossly   i  icor.stitutiona! 
proceedings  appear  in  the  records  of  any  Judicatory, 
or  are  charged  against   them  by  common  fame,  the 
first  step  to  be  taicen  by  the  Judicatory  next  above  is 
to  cite  the  Judicatory  alleged  to  iiave  oftended  to  ap- 
pear ac  a  specified  time  and   plice,  and  to  ehow 
what  it  has  done,  or  failed  to  do,  in  the  case  in  ques- 


MR.    BARN'ES. 


223 


*ion:  after  wliich  the  Judicatory  thue  issuing  the  ci- 
tntion  shall  remit  the  whole  mutter  to  the  delinquent 
Judiriitory,  with  a  direction  to  lake  it  up,  and  dispose 
oi"  it  in  a  constitutional  manner,  or  siay  all  further 
proceedinji's  in  IJie  case,  as  circumstances  may  re- 
quire." So  if  thii!  case  comes  belore  us  on  this 
trround,  all  we  can  do  is  to  send  it  back  to  the  Pres- 
bytery. But  It  cannot  come  here,  because  when 
these  ihinafe  were  done,  that  Presbytery  was  not  un- 
der our  jurisdiction:  it  was  not  "  tlie  Judicatory 
ne.vt  beloic,'^  or  below  us,  or  subject  to  us,  in  any 
sense  whatever.  There  remains  but  one  other  way 
in  which  tlie  case  can  come  before  us.  and  that  is  oa 
anap;)eal:  hut  if  it  comes  here  by  uppeal  then  you 
must  confine  yourself  to  the  written  record  ot  the 
doing's  appealed  I'rom.  But  that  record  is  not  here. 
It  is  said  that  we  have  the  evidence,  but  the  question 
is,  wheiher  we  have  all  the  documents  belore  us 
which  were  before  the  Presbytery?  Have  we  any 
of  them?  I  say  in  reply  that  we  have  no  Constitu- 
tional verification  of  any, save  ol  the  sentence  passed 
by  Presbviery  and  their  reasons  for  that  sentence. 
As  to  ihe  document  which  was  read  by  Dr.  Junkin  it 
is  no  more  evidence  than  his  plea.  1  iiave  no  evi- 
dence thai  it  ever  was  upon  the  record  or  even  on 
the  files  ol  the  court  below  ;  but  if  I  had,  still  it  ia 
not  all  the  evidence  which  was,  before  the  Presbytery. 
And  the  constitution  requires  that  we  shall  have  all. 
We  are  directed  and  required  to  "read  the  whole 
record  of  the  proceeding's  of  the  inferior  Judicatory 
in  the  case,  including  all  ihe  testimony."  Yet  from 
the  answer  of  Mr.  Steel  to  questions  of  Dr.  Mc- 
Dowell and  of  Mr.  McCalla,  it  appears  that  we  have 
not  all  that  the  Presbytery  had. 

Dr.  JusKiN.  Did  Mr.  Barnes  offer,  as  testimony  prior  to 
the  opening  of  the  argument  by  the  parlies,  any  testimony 
wtiaievrr '? 

Mr.  Steele.  If  my  recollection  serves  me,  Mr.  Barnes  al- 
ways read  a  passage  from  his  book  in  answer  to  the  passages 
cited  by  Dr.  Junkin  under  each  charge,  and  commented  on 
them  at  the  lime.  This  I  suppose  he  adduced  as  rebutting 
testimony.  But  whether  the  court  considered  it  so  or  not  I 
do  not  knew.  I  give  merely  my  own  individual  supposition., 
I  ask  leave  to  remark  here,  as  a  reason  why  I  suppose  this 
that  the  trial  before  presbytery  was  conducted  in  this  man- 
ner. First  the  Prosecutor  read  a  passage  from  Mr.  Barnes's 
book.  Then  the  prosecutor  was  hieard  in  support  of  that 
charge.  Then,  when  he  had  finished  his  remarks,  the  accused 
was  heard  in  reply,  when  he  first  read  passages  out  of  his 
book  and  then  commented  upon   them. 

Dr.  Mc  Dowel.  Does  this  rebutting;  testimony  make  a 
part  of  what  is  here  presented  before  this  court'? 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  There  should  be  something  in  the 
tiuestion  to  show  the  real  state  of  the  fact.  Ii  is  eviden  t  from 
tiie  reply  of  the  witness  that  there  was  no  rebutting  testimony 


224  TRIAL    OF 

adduced.  If  the  question  is  entered  in  the  form  proposed  it 
will  appear  that  iheie  was  rebutting  testimony,  when  he 
Slated  there  was  none. 

Dr.  Mc  Dowel.  As  I  understood  the  witnesses  this  n- 
butting  testimony  was  read  under  each  charge  as  Dr.  Junkin 
proceeded.  I  want  to  know  whether  this  makes  part  of  the 
documents  before  the  court'/ 

Mr.  Steele.  I  have  already  answered  the  question:  this 
document  contains  only  the  proof  addressed  before  the  Pres- 
bytery by  Dr.  Junkin.  If  Mr.  Barnes  read  at  any  time  the 
same  passages  from  his  book  which  Dr.  Junkin  read,  then 
this  contains  a  part  of  what  Mr.  Barnes  read  :  if  not,  then 
it  contains  nothing  of  what  he  read. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Did  not  Dr.  Junkin  formally  lay  before  the 
Presbytery  inculpatory  passages  from  Mr.  Barnes'  book  as 
evidence  against  him,  before  the  argument  on  his  part  com- 
menced. 

Mr.  Steele.    He  did. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Did  Mr.  Barnes  formally  lay  before  the 
Presbytery  any  rebutting  testimony  from  the  same  book  be- 
fore his  argument  in  reply? 

Mr.  Steele.     He  did. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Were  the  rebutting  passages  adduced  by 
Mr.  Barnes  read  also  by  the  Presbytery  before  the  argu- 
ment? 

Mr.  Steele.  The  Presbytery  took  up  the  trial  in  detail, 
one  charge  at  a  time:  and,  if  1  recollect  rightly,  Mr.  Barnes' 
proof,  m  the  passages  read  by  him,  and  which  1  understood 
10  be  meant  as  rebutting  testimony,  was  adduced  under  each 
particular  charge. 

Now,  where  is  that  testimony  ?  A  member,  in  his 
speech,  solemnly  appealed  to  heaven  to  witness  that 
we  have  all  that  was  belbre  tiie  Presbytery.  But 
what  said  the  witness  to  a  query  by  Mr.  Winchester'? 

[Our  reporter  here  says,  "  Insert  Winchester's  query  and 
Steele's  reply  ;"  but  we  cannot  find  them  in  the  report  of  Mr. 
Steele's  examination.] 

Is  not  this  proof  enough  that  testimony  was  sub- 
mitted to  Presbytery  by  iVIr.  Barnes  which  is  not  be- 
fore us?  We  have  no  proof  that  this  paper  of  Dr. 
Junkin's  was  ever  recorded  by  the  Presbyteiy  at  all. 
Again,  therefore,  1  assert,  on  evidence  here  record- 
ed in  your  minutes,  that  we  have  not  all  the  testi- 
mony. If  there  was  a  letter  containing  rebutting 
evidence,  who  brought  it  before  the  PresbyteryV 
Somebody  must.  Was  it  Dr.  Junkin? — No.  Mr. 
Barnes? — No.  The  Presbytery  ? — No.  Iliaveheard 
not  a  word  said  of  this:  yet  such  a  letter  there  was 
before  the  Presbytery.  But  it  is  said  the  testimony 
is  in  the  book.  I  ask,  whereabouts  in  the  book? 
Who  has  read  it  here?  It  miglit  equally  well  have 
been  said  that  the  proof  of  Mr.  Barnes's  heresy  is  in 
Dr.  Junkin's  manuscript:  but  could  we  have  judged 
of  it,  unless  we  had  heard  it  ?  unless  it  had  been 
read  belbre  the  court?  It  is  said  there  are  contra- 
dictory, or  countervailing  passages  in  hie  book,  which 


MR.    BARNES.  225 

convey  an  impression  the  reverKC  of  what  is  charged. 
Have  these  been  read  to  us?  Has  the  court  heard 
Iheni  ?  Supposing  you  were  trying  a  nian  for  a  ser- 
mon; would  you  not  read  the  whole  of  it?  Must  it 
not  be  read  in  court?  Suppose  a  hiwyer,  in  arguing 
t)efore  tlie  Supreme  Court,  should  say  that  Biack- 
fitone,  or  Chiiiy,  or  any  other  law  authority,  said  so 
and  so:  must  lie  not  read  the  p;iseage  ?  is  it  not  al- 
ways done?  or  oufiht  it  not  to  be?  But  where  is 
the  advocate  here  to  bring  out  any  countervailing  or 
even  any  mitisrating  evidence?  I  do  not  know,  to 
this  liour,  what  passages  Mr.  Barnes  adduced  as  re- 
butting or  explanatory  evidence  belore  the  Presby- 
tery. 1  therefore  say  that  we  cannot  sustain  the  ap- 
peal, because  we  have  not  the  documents  which 
were  belore  the  court  below. 

Having  disposed  of  the  first  point,  I  now  come  to 
the  question  whether  the  trial  has  been  orderly  con- 
ducted. In  ord-T  10  this,  it  is  necessary  that  ail  the 
documents  must  be  read,  and  that  the  parties  be 
iilly  heard.  Now  I  he  documents  have  not  been  read, 
and,  as  I  must  think,  the  parties  were  shut  out  ol 
court  too  soon.  The  Presbyiery  had  a  right  lo  put 
in  their  argument  here  in  bar  of  your  jurisdiction. 
This'lhey  were  Qot  allowed  lo  do.  And  1  must  give 
it  as  my  opinion,  that  the  plea  of  the  Presbytery 
was  shuc  out  by  implication  in  a  way  rather  rash, 
and  not  calculated  to  secure  llie  ends  of  ju;;tice.  I 
cannot  persuade  myself  that  the  accused  has  had 
what  our  constitution  secures  te  him,  a  "fair  and 
impartial"  trial.  He  was  certainly  justifiable  in  re- 
fusing his  assent  to  the  trial's  proceeding  any  lar- 
t.her,  after  his  Presbytery  had  refused  tiie documents 
indispensable  to  its  orderly  proceeding. 

In  regard  to  the  charge  ol  heresy,  I  think  it  has 
not  been  sustained.  I  admit  that  Mr.  Barnes  has 
said  many  things  against  the  terms  and  phrases 
"covenant  of  works"  and  "imputation."  and  that 
what  he  has  said  against  these  phrases  does  appear, 
at  first,  to  be  directed  against  what  IJtclievc  to  be 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  on  those  points:  but,  fronr.  a 
long  intimacy  and  iniimate  fellowship  and  sympathy 
with  him,  I  do  not  believe  that  he  means  to  deny  any 
one  fundamental  doctrine  of  our  confession:  on  the 
contrary,  nobody  holds  its  fundamental  truths  more 
cordially.  I  think  he  has  been  imprudent  in  his  lan- 
guage ;  but  1  believe  that  what  he  says  against  im- 
putation is  only  directed  against  that  theory  which 
lioldsthat  there  is  a  transfer  of  character  ui'der  that 
term,  and  that  when  he  talks  about  the  guilt  of  Adam's 
sin  not  belorging  to  his  posteriiy,  he  n)eiins  no 
Hiore  than  that  tliey  had  no  personal  pariicipation 
in  Adam's  sin.  On  the  whole,  1  cannot,  by  maintain- 
ing the  appeal,  condemn  n\y  brother  Barnes,  be- 


226  TRIAL  OF 

cause  we  have  nothing  to  go  upon  but  ex  parte  tes- 
timony, while  the  rebutting  evidence  that  might  take 
away  all  its  Ibrce,  has  never  even  been  read  belbre  us. 
Mr.  Howe. 

I  cannot  sustain  the  appeal :  and  I  shall  point  out 
a  few  of  the  reasons  why  I  cannot.  In  the  first  place, 
because  I  have  heard  but  one  side  ot'the  cause.  The 
appellee  has  not  made  his  defence.  Whatever  may 
have  been  said  by  some  of  the  Judges  who  have  spo- 
ken.  the  fact  cannot  be  denied  that  he  is  not  here, 
nor  is  the  evidence  he  presented  lo  the  Presbytery 
here.  It  is  passing  strange  to  me  to  hear  the  asser- 
tion so  often  repeated,  that  we  have  all  the  testimony 
which  was  before  the  couri  below.  I  will  not,  how- 
ever, dwell  upon  that  point:  the  contrary  has  been 
ably  shown  by  legal  gentlemen  present.  We  are 
told,  however,  that  the  book  is  full  of  contradictions, 
and  that  the  general  sentiments  of  the  author  contra- 
vene the  essential  doctrines  of  the  christian  scheme, 
Avhile  there  are  some  passages  of  a  directly  oppo- 
site character.  In  such  circumstances  1  ask  who  is 
to  explain  the  matter  ?  It  is  answered,  the  common 
sense  of  mankind.  But  1  hold  it  to  be  a  correct  prin- 
ciple in  the  exposition  of  all  works  of  every  sorir,  that 
they  shall,  if  possible,  be  so  explairied  as  to  be  con- 
sistent with  themselves,  and  if  any  explanation  is  to 
be  given  we  are  certainly  to  look  to  the  author. 
That  there  are  ambiguous  terms  employed  in  the 
book  is  there  any  one  here  that  doubts?  We  fieard 
one  of  the  judges  say  that  the  sentiments  there  ex- 
pressed destroyed  the  very  foundation  of  a  christian't* 
hope:  and  the  prosecutor  declared  in  his- letter  to 
Mr.  Barnes  that  if  his  doctrine  was  true  he,  Dr.  J. 
could  no  longer  "  read  his  title  clear  ro  mansions  in 
the  skies."  And  then  on  the  other  hand  an  aged 
father  rose  up  and  told  us  that  he  knew  some  of  tlie 
■wisest  and  best  of  men  who  held  precisely  the  same 
views.  Under  statements  so  contradictory  ought  we 
not  to  pause  and  enquire  for  a  correct  expotjitor? 
And  who  shall  we  call  upon  but  the  author  of  the 
book?  We  have  had  expositions  enough  from  other 
quarters :  but  tfiey  have  been  such  as  I  am  persuaded 
he  would  be  the  very  last  to  choose  :  especially  in  a 
case  where  personal  reputation,  oflicial  standing,  and 
all  tlie  dearest  interests  of  life  are  so  deeply  in- 
volved. I  am  surprised  to  hear  men  of  judgment  de- 
clare that  they  have  all  the  light  upon  the  case  that 
they  wish. 

[R.  Breckinridge.  Nobody  has  said  that  on  thi* 
floor.] 

1  cannot  sustain  the  appeal  in  consistency  with  the 
principle  embodied  and  published  by  the  highest  ju- 
dicatory of  the  church  in  1824,  in  a  minute  penned  by 
Dr.  Miller  himself,  a  man  whose  orthodoxy,  I  sup- 


MR.    BARNES.  227 

pose,  is  not  called  in  qiieslion  in  thic"  body.  Most 
clearly  there  can  be  no  trial  where  there  are  no  par- 
ties, or  where  the  parties  are  not  heard.  Tliere  are 
no  parties  here  before  us.  It  is  i)erleclly  ridiculous  lo 
call  it  a  trial.  You  may  call  it,  in  some  sort,  an  exami- 
nation, I  admit  ^  for  we  have  had  a  Ions  and  tedious 
exaininaiion  ol  certain  pjassagee  ol'  Mr.  Barnes'a 
book  :  but  lo  call  it  a  (rial  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
There  cannot  be  a  trial  without  parties.  In  an  in- 
dictment lor  words  the  very  words  of  the  book  .should 
have  been  marked.  There  is  good  sense  in  this;  it 
is  required  in  order  that  the  accused  may  have  all  the 
advantHges  in  his  defence  which  the  law  secures  to 
him.  He  must  know  the  e.xact  charges  and  the 
proofs  by  which  ihey  are  to  be  sustained  :  and  why  ? 
that  he  may  be  prepared  to  bring  forward  rebutting 
testimony.  I  cannot  sustain  tiie  appeal,  because  if  I 
must  give  judgment  it  will  be  on  ex  parte  evidence. 
I  must  believe,  witli  several  of  my  lellow  judges,  that 
1  am  to  judi^e  from  evidence  before  me.  I  cannot  go 
beyond  the  lestiniony.  I  was  warned  of  this  Irom 
the  chair  when  we  went  into  our  judicial  capacity: 
and  I  felt  at  the  time  as  if  I  were  taking  such  an  oath 
as  is  tendered  to  a  juryman.  When  the  character 
and  ministerial  destiny  of  a  brother  is  placed  at  my 
disposal,  surely  I  must  confine  myself  rigidly  to  evi- 
dence produced  in  this  court  without  going  out  of 
doors.  But  to  proceed  on  such  testimony  ns  we 
have  had  here,  I  must  not  only  pronounce  Mr.  Barnes 
guilty  of  heresy,  but  must,  as  we  were  exhorted  the 
other  day,  "  tear  hie  ministerial  robes  from  off  his 
person." 

[R.  Breokinrioge.  I  ask  if  the  gentleman  means 
me?  if  he  does,  1  shall  move  the  Synod  that  what  he 
says  is  false. 

MoncRATOR.  It  is  not  in  order  to  use  the  expres- 
sion that  what  a  brother  says  on  the  floor  is  not 
true.] 

Mr.  H.  Well,  sir,  if  the  words  were  not  uttered 
the  sentiment  was,  and  Irom  the  lips  of  more  than 
one  here  present,  aud  I  repeat,  that  were  I  to  judge 
ot  brother  Barnes  from  what  has  been  exhibited  here 
only,  I  should  pronounce  him  a  gross  heretic,  and 
should  believe  thai  he  did  deserve  to  have  his  "  robes 
tor7i  from  him."  A  man  who  denies  original  sin,  na- 
tive depravity,  and  salvation  by  faith  in  the  righteous- 
ness of  Jesus  Christ,  is  at  war  not  only  with  the  Cal- 
vinistic  but  with  the  christian  system.  Such  a  man 
ought  not  only  to  be  deposed  from  the  ministry,  but  if 
he  w^ere  a  member  of  my  church  I  Avould  immediately 
institute  process  against  him.  1  am  unwilling  to  has- 
ten to  a  decision.  If  others  can  see  their  way  clear, 
let  them  rush  to  a  conclusion  ;  but  I  for  one  am  not 
prepared.    I  want  light :  and  I  must  have  much  more 


22S  TRIAL   OF 

than  I  have  before  I  can  consent  to  destroy  the  char- 
acier  and  usefulneps  ol"  a  rellow  laborer  in  the  vine- 
yard  otour  God.  Another  reason  vvhy  I  cannot  eiif- 
tain  this  appeal  is  because  tlie  pro&ecutor  did  not 
commence  as  our  Lord  directs  in  the  twenty-sixth 
chapter  olMatihew.  Nor  has  the  trial  been  conduct- 
ed according  to  the  constitution.  I  think  that  it  Dr. 
Junkin  had  acted  in_  the  first  instance  on  christian 
principles,  instead  of  sending  Mr.  Barnes  a  letter 
telling  him,  he  ineani  to  drag  him  bet'ore  a  church 
court  to  answer  for  liis  dncirinc,  he  would  have  gone 
to  him  personally,  would  have  entered  his  study,  and 
there  in  a  brotlmrly  spirit  have  pointed  out  wtierein 
Jie  considered  him  in  error.  Had  lie  done  this,  I  do 
believe  that  there  is  candor  enough,  and  Christian 
spirit  enough  in  Albert  Barnes  to  have  induced  hina 
at  once  to  strike  out  all  the  exceptionable  phrases 
from  his  book. 

1  am  the  more  satisfied  of  this  from  what  was  told 
me  by  one  of  our  oriiiodo.K  brethren.  After  reading 
his  book,  lie  went  to  brcMier  Barnes  anil  showed  him 
some  passages  iie  had  marked  as  objectionable:  upon 
which,  with  characteristic  meekness  and  candor,  he 
at  once  took  out  his  pencil,  drew  a  line  round  the 
words,  and  promised  that  they  should  never  appear 
in  any  future  edition.  And  did  he  not  tell  the  Synod 
in  his  address  to  us,  tiiat  he  had  altered  a  number  ol' 
the  passages  wiiich  the  prosecutor  and  the  reviewer 
had  objected  to?  IN'ovv  the  true  end  of  discipline  is  to 
secure  not  tiie  condemnation,  but  jlie  relormation  of 
those  on  whom  it  is  exercised.  If  this  course  had 
l)ecn  pursued  in  a  spirit  of  kindness,  and  the  irregu- 
dar  and  unconstitutional  steps  which  have  been  taken 
uiad  been  avoided,  there  might  before  this  time  have 
/been  an  end  to  the  dispute;  and  instead  of  standing 
jliere  frowning  upon  each  other  with  drawn  sworda 
lin  our  hands,  we  might  have  been  weeping  together, 
Uvith  our  arms  on  each  other's  necks,  over  llie  deso- 
putioDs  of  Zion. 

]\Tr.  Jones. 

I  shall  not  give  judgment  in  this  cause:  not  be- 
cause I  have  any  doubts  in  point  ot  doctrine,  for  I 
think  1  know  what  brother  Barnes's  views  are,  nor 
because  I  have  any  doubt  what  the  judgment  ought 
to  be;  but  because,  under  tlie  circumstances  of  the 
court  and  of  the  case.  1  have  no  constitutional  right 
to  give  any  judgment  in  the  matter. 
Mr.  Landis. 

Brother  Barnes  has  been  termed  a  semi-Pelagian, 
as  he  denies  that  Christ  suHercd  the  wrath  of  God. 
I.n  regard  to  his  sentiments  on  tiii?  point  I  am  not  dis- 
posed to  agree  with  him,  for  I  subscribe  to  the  creed 
of  no  fallible  man:  but  in  taking  the  position  he  has. 
is  he  guilty  of  heresy?    Even  orthodox  individuala. 


MR.     BARNES.  229 

when  they  subscribe  the  Confession  at  their  onlina- 
tion,  do  not  conceive  themselves  to  ch-clare  that  they 
approve  ex  animo  of  every  jot  and  tittle  it  containn. 
Even  among  those  who  profess  ro  do  this,  and  hold 
that  every  one  ou^ht  to  do  it,  we  find,  in  f.irt,  many 
diflerences  ofopinion.  There  are  many  ditlerent  views 
in  relation  tn  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  the  con- 
dition of  infants,  the  mode  and  subjects  oi'  bnptism, 
anil  many  similar  matter.?  amonsr  those  who  do  sub- 
scribe the  standards  ex  animo.  Now  consider  how 
difierently  ditierent  men  expound  the  Confession. 
Heresy  is  a  departure  from  fundamentals  in  religion: 
in  the  calvini'^tic  sense  of  the  term,  it  is  a  depart- 
ure from  the  fundamentals  of  Calvinism  :  so,  in  the 
Presbyterian  sense  it  is  a  departure  from  the  funda- 
mentals of  Presbyterianism.  In  regard  to  Ridgelejf, 
none  will  dispute  that  he  is  a  Calvinist ;  his  work  is 
studied  in  our  Theol.  Sem's:  yet  he  denies  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God.  The  very  man 
who  is  quoted  against  brother  Barnes  avows  such  to 
be  his  belief:  a  sentiment  which  every  one  views 
with  abhorrence.  Yet  Ridgeley  is  a  standard  Cal- 
vini-st,  and  no  man  ever  accused  him  of  heresy.  And 
now  I  ask  's  brother  Barnes  to  be  pronounced  a 
heretic  because  he  denies  that  Christ  suHered  what 
may  properly  be  called  the  wrath  of  God  ?  I  say  no. 
And  on  this  subject  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Synod 
to  the  language  i.'i'a  man  who  took  a  prominent  stand 
and  had  an  important  part  in  framing  that  Confes- 
sion which  we  adopt  as  the  standard  of  our  church. 
I  refer  to  the  celebrated  Lightfoot.  In  the  2d  volume 
of  his  works,  page  1347  he  has  the  following  [Here 
Mr.  L.  quoted  from  Lightfoot.  Not  having  the  work 
we  are  unable  to  give  the  extract] 

Here  we  have  an  individual  who  has  given  form 
and  feature  to  many  parts  of  our  standards,  and 
whose  sanction  the  whole  confession  received,  who 
yet  maintains  openly  the  very  contrary  to  the  doc- 
trine held  by  Dr.  Junkin.  It  is  well  known  that  much 
debate  was  had  in  the  Assembly  before  it  was  agreed 
to  insert  in  the  confession  a  declaration  i hat  Christ 
suffered  the  wrath  of  God,  and  here  is  Dr.  Lightfoot 
maintaining  a  sentiment  directly  rhe  reverse  of  it.  T 
have  a  mernorandum  of  other  quotations  from  his 
work,  all  going  to  show  the  same  thin^.  but  I  cannot 
now  lay  my  hand  upon  it.  Now  ii  Mr.  Barnes,  for 
denying  this  position,  is  to  he  pronounced  a  heretic, 
then,  on  the  same  ground,  Dr.  Lightfoot  n)ust  be  a 
her'^tic  also  :  and  others  of  those  distinguished  men 
who  feigned  a  confession  are  heretics  with  him.  We 
have  been  told  that  we  know  nothing  of  law,  nor  need 
we  know.  To  judge  in  a  case  like  this,  it  does  not 
require  that  a  man  should  know  so  much  as  the  ABC 
of  a  county  court.  The  argument  is  plain  and  simple. 


230 


TRIAL    OF 


If  brother  Barnes  is  a  heretic  then  Matthew  Plenry 
is  a  lierelic.  It,  may  iiiJeoiJ  be  said  that  his  views  on 
this  p  irlicular  point  tlo  not  airree.  with  tht;  conrt'^sion  ; 
no  uiort*.  iliii  those  of  Dr.  Lii^lii loot,  who  lielped  to 
make  file  confession.  Yet  Ur.  Lij^hifool  was  not  ac- 
cused ot  heresy  either  then  or  yiiice.  On  tlie  con- 
trary, he  and  his  venerable  brethren  lived  and  pray- 
ed like  christians  to:j:ether,  aii<i  never  lell  out  by  tlie 
way.  And  shall  a  beloved  brother  in  the  midst  o!  us 
wliom  God  has  lilessed  and  made  ernineiillv  usel'ui, 
he  draj^ged  up  like  a  criminrd  before  a  church  court 
for  liohin^tlie  very  opinions  which  were  lieid  by 
those  who  drew  up  our  c«nfes;iion  7  I  blush  to  think 
of  it. 

Mr.  GllANDER. 

I  feel  constrained,  on  Has  occasion,  to  ofier  a  few 
remarks,  arising  out  of  the  simple  consideration  that 
r  have  had  a  better  opportunity  than  many  of  the 
brethren  here  present  to  iinovv  the  sentiments  ol  bro- 
ther Barnes,  as  proclaimed  by  him  Irom  the  pulpit, 
having  sal  {'or  two  years  under  his  minstry  at  Mor- 
ristown.  I  ara  amazed  at  the  charges,  and  at  the 
evidence  adduced  to  support  them,  and  it  is  nsy  so- 
lemn conviction  that  the  seniiments  of  Mr.  Barnes 
liave,  on  the  most  vital  points  been  misappreiiended, 
or  wilfully  misrei)resented.  I  speak  particularly  in 
reference  to  the  two  points  of  the  moral  ability  of  a 
sinner  and  o(  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness 
for  his  justification.  Brother  B.irnes  wasin  the  habit 
when  at  Morristown,  of  lecturing  consecutively  on 
diH'erent  books  of  the  Bible,  and  among  others,  he 
lectured  on  the  epistle  to  ihe  Ephesians,  from  which 
epistle  it  ha.s  been  attempted  to  prove  that  he  teach- 
es heresy.  1  asked  brother  Barnes  last  evenin«r 
whether  he  ever  believed  or  declared,  either  verbal- 
ly or  by  writing,  or  ever  intended  to  be  understocd 
as  declaring  that  men  can  convert  themselves.  His 
answer  was, '' I  never  did:"  and  my  testimony,  as 
one  ol  his  hearers,  is,  that  1  never  heard  Jiim  so  de- 
clare. Indeed  I  never  heard  such  an  opinion  tauglit 
by  any  minister  on  earth.  1  suppose  Dr.  Junkin  uses 
the  term  conversion  as  synonymous  with  regenera- 
tion. That  men  can  regenerate  themselves  is  an 
absurdity,  and  the  sinner  will  not  impute  an  absurdi- 
ty of  thai  k:nd  to  a  man  of  acknowledged  talenis  and 
whose  views  in  general  on  points  of  ilieology  are  ad- 
mitted to  be  correct.  But  what  is  the  point  actually 
aimed  at  by  the  charge  of  Dr.  Jankin?  It  is  the  dis- 
tinction between  natural  and  moral  ability,  a  dit-tinc- 
lion  ai  this  moment  held  by  a  great  majority  botli 
of  the  ministers  and  members  ol'  the  Presbyterian 
church.  But  is  the  holding  of  this  distinction  equiva- 
lent to  maintaining  that  men  can  convert  themselves? 
Dr.  Junkin  probably  believes  so,  but  we  utterly  deny 


MR.    BARNES.  231 

it,  I  hav«  Dot  flo  apprehended  truth.    Mr.  BarneH  I 
know  does  teach  man's  moral  inabihty,  I  have  heard 
liim  over  and  over  preacli  that  sinners  are  utterly 
opposed  to  the  j^overnmcnt  of  God,  that  they  are  so 
unjust  to  the  divine  claims,  so  sro^sly  disorderly, 
and  so  utterly  rebellious,   that  nothing  but  omnipo- 
tence can  overcome  the  enmity  ol"  their  hearts.    As 
to  the  chargre  of  maiiUaininj;^  that  all  sin  consists  in 
action,  1  sup|)ose   that  the  prosecutor  intended  by  it 
to  be  understood  as  accusing  JVIr.  Barnes  of  dciiyinff 
original  sin,  but  I  with  others  heard  Mr.  Barnes  no 
longer  ajio  than  last   Sabbath   declare  that   when 
Adaoi  {ell,  the  fountain  of  the  race  became  corrupt, 
and  that  in  consequence  all  the  streams  from  the 
fountain  became  corrupt  also,  and   (hat  all  mankind 
came  into  existence  under  the  curse.    I  have  not 
read  his  whole  book,   but  I  believe  so  far  as  I  have 
looked  at  it  that  it  corresponds  to  his  teaching  in 
Morristovvn,  and  I  do  know  that  there  he  taught  that 
men  come  into  the  world  destitute  of  original  righ- 
teousness, corrupt  at  heart,  and  subject  to  pain  and 
all  woe,  and  this  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin  ;  and 
is  not  this  teaching  the  doctrine  of  original  sin?  As 
to  his  denial  of  justification  by  faith  in  the  righteous- 
ness of  Jesus  Christ  I  siitin  amazement  while  the 
charge  was  read.    I  have  heard  hmi  when  he  was 
my  p.tstor  bring  out  that  doctrine  again  and  again  in 
the  most  explicit  terms.    Indeed   the  great   object 
and  drift  of  his  t 'reaching  was  to  declare  God's  new 
method  of  justification,  by  faith  in  tlie  righteousness 
of  his  iSon.    If  Dr.  Junkin  douhis  it  let  him  go  and 
ask  the  people  of  Morristown.    If  iliat  people  could 
have  been  here  present  and  listened  to  these  charg- 
es, and  the  testimony  adduced  to  support  them,  they 
would  cry  out  with  one  voice  ''  if  Mr.  Barnes  teach- 
es so  he  must  have  changed  his  sentinier\ts  more 
completely  than  any  man  on  earth."    Dr.  Rodgers 
and  Dr.  Ridgeley  had  both  been  there,  yet  they  de- 
clared that  they  had  never  had  a  minister  who  taught 
the  Calvinistic  system  of  doctrme  as  plainly  and  as 
pungently  as  Mr.  Barnes.   I  know  that  he  ha?  thrown 
away  the  phrases  "  Oiiginal  sin"  and  "  Covenant  ol 
v/orks"    but  the   Repertory  declares  that   he    has 
taught  the  facts  in  tlie  case,  and  this  is  g.ll  I  hat  any 
latn,   the   most  orthodox,    wishes   to   t.ave   taught. 
While   the  trulhs  are  taught  wh.v  should  we"^  be 
alarnr.ed  at  the  disuse  of  a  phrase?   vVny  vvere  coun- 
ter statements  quoted  Irom  the  BihIiL'al   Repertory  ? 
Not  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  Repertory  contra- 
dict itself.    For  what,  then?    The  Repertory  had 
declared  that  the  denyintr  of  original  sin  involved 
blasphemy,  and  that  seems  to  be  the   point  which 
brethren  wish  to  establish.     They  bring  the  Reper- 
tory to  declare  that  denying  original  sin  involves 


232  TRIAL   OF 

blasphemy,  and  then  they  endeavor  to  Ljhovv  that 
\lr.  Barnes  denies  origiaal  sin.  The  influence  which 
-nusl  I'ollow  is  sutficienLly  obvioii:^.  A  brother  was 
idken  to  task  for  allirniinf?  that  it.  was  declared  from 
1  certain  quarter  that  Mr.  Barnes  deserved  to  have 
lis  robes  cf  office  torn  oH'  his  back,  but  1  heard  that 
.an^uage  used,  and  I  know  what  was  the  aim  of 
using  il:  indeed  it  was  expressly  avowed  that  a  man 
who  holds  these  sentiments  ought  no  longer  to  hold 
ihe  functions  of  a  christian  minister.  The  brother 
who  advanced  such  sentiments  has  entered  with  a 
torch  ihe  very  citadel  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  I 
would  say  to  him  "hold  back  your  hand  the  maga- 
zine is  there.  If  you  cast  fire  there,  the  destiny  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  is  sealed,  ske  falls  to  rise 
never  again  but  in  tlie  disjointed  fragments  produced 
by  the  explosion." 

Mr.  PlCKANDS. 

When  the  testimony  and  argument  had  been 
•CiOsed,  a  brother  suggested  the  proprier.y  of  com- 
mencing the  call  for  individual  opinions  at  the  lower 
end  of  Ihc  roil,  that  some  of  the  younger  members, 
and  those  supposed  to  be  friendly  to  Mr.  Barnes, 
might  lirst  be  hoard.  I  took  this  proposition  kindly 
— its  object  was  to  secure  us  a  hearing;  but  as  things 
now  stand,  members  be^in  to  say  that  they  are  tired 
out,  their  aUention  begins  to  flag,  and  Mr.  Barnes's 
friends  jorming  bat  a  small  body,  and  coming  in  at 
the  end  of  a  long  and  wearisome  concern,  are  in  dan- 
ger ot  being  crowded  out  by  the  mere  impatience  of 
weary  l)rethren.  Now  I  have  myself  interrupted  no 
one,  and  as  I  have  not  lon;^  to  speak,  I  hope  that  the 
Iriends  ol  Mr.  Barnes  will  be  heard  with  the  same 
patience  and  indulgence  as  has  been  extended  to 
tiiose  who  have  spoken  against  him.  I  wish  to  cor- 
rect an  error.  1  know  ihat  all  who  advocate  Mr 
Barnes,  are,  by  a  certain  class  of  brethren,  supposed 
as  a  matter  of  course  to  agree  with  all  his  senti- 
ments. Now,  ar-  I  do  not  desire  to  lose  the  love  of 
these  brethren,  from  a  misapprehension,  1  declare, 
in  the  outset,  that  I  am  an  old  school  man.  I  do  not 
approve  of  the  mode  of  speaking  pursued  by  our 
brethren  of  the  other  side,  and  this  the  records  of 
the  Presbytery,  when  they  shall  by  and  by  come  fo 
light,  will  show.  It  may  be  asked,  "  why  tlien  do 
you  stick  to  him?"  My  answer  i5^"as  an  Ameri- 
can, I  siand  by  to  see  justice  done  him."  I  thought 
that,  under  the  influence  ot  heated  passions,  there 
might  be  some  danger  of  rash  and  unjustifiable  njea- 
eures,  but  I  disclaim  all  identity  with  Mr.  Barnes  in 
matters  of  modern  speculation.  I  do  not  hke  the  new 
philosophy,  nor  do  1  approve  of  the  terms  and  phras" 
es  which  have  been  introduced  by  its  friends ;  yet 


MR.    BAUNES.  233 

while  T  avow  this,  I  do  not  consider  that  the  use  of 
them  amoiuits  to  an  ollenco  eo  i^rave,  that  a  man 
must  be  decniiiratcd  lor  if.  But  vvlien  1  ask  myself 
the  question,  C-in  you  sustain  the  present  appeal?  I 
find  my  mind  runnin;?  back  over  the  wliole  ijround  of 
controversy,  and  a  very  serious  rc?ponsil)ilil.y  imme- 
diately prescnt;<  itseh".  1  believe  that  there  is  not  a 
brother  here  but  I'eels  that  responsibility  and  feels  it 
deeply.  I  believe  t.hent  is  no  man  here  tlint  is  not 
honest  in  iiis  course.  However  we  niyy  ciiH'er,  I  be- 
lieve it  is  a  dill'erence  arising  iVoui  honest  conviction 
of  duty.  1  concede  this  to  others,  and  all  I  ask,  is, 
that  they  will  allow  me  the  same.  If  we  cannot 
asree,  let  us  agree  to  diti'er.  But  why  can  I  not  sus- 
tain the  appeal?  11  I  do  sustain  it,  it  must  been 
evidence  ;  but  what  evidence  have  I  heard  ?  None 
but  what  the  prosecutor  has  brought  here.  None, 
not  a  scrap  but  wliat  forms  part  and  parcel  of  the 
prosecutor's  speech.  i\one  but  that  concerning 
which  a  witness  swore  that  it  Ibrmed  no  part  of  the 
Presbyterial  record.  All  the  rebutting  testimony  is 
absent.  The  legal  and  learned  brother  over  the 
way,  (Mr.  Robert  Breckinridge,)  who  takes  so  lead- 
ing a  part  in  pressing  the  prosecution,  has  not  pre- 
tended that  all  the  evidence  is  here ;  he  does  not 
take  that  ground.  Others  say  that  it  is  here — that 
we  have  got  all  we  ought  to  have,  and  all  we  v;ant. 
As  an  argument  to  sustain  the  charge  of  heresy,  we 
are  told,  that  the  work  on  the  Romans  was  intended 
for  the  use  of  children,  and  another  brother  reminds 
ns  that  it  was  prepared  lor  Sabbath  school  teachers. 
When  I  heard  this  argument,  I  thought  wiihin  my- 
sel(,  there  are  precious  lew  of  our  Sabbath  school 
teachers  who  are  competent  to  understand  it,  and 
what  are  the  children  to  do?  A  venerable  father 
near  the  chair  (Dr.  Cathcart)  inlbrmed  us,  that  be- 
fore a  man  attempts  to  write  upon  the  Romans,  he 
ought  to  have  studied  theology  for  forty  or  fifty 
years.  When  [  heard  this,  I  said  to  myself,  "  How 
then  can  I  be  competent  to  decide  upon  such  a  work, 
or  tell  whether  it  is  heretical  or  not  ?"  Suppose  I 
Avas  a  blacksmith,  and  never  had  had  any  opportuni- 
ties of  education,  should  I  be  competent  to  "  decide, 
when  doctors  disagreed"  ?  And  how  can  these  eld' 
ers  judge  in  such  a  case? 

[The  Moderator  here  called  Mr.  Pickands  to  order; 
observing,  that  there  were  many  elders  present  in 
the  Synod  quite  as  competent  to  judge  on  a  question 
of  theology  as  the  gentleman  himself.] 

Mr.  PicKANUs  resuming.  I  meant  no  reflection  on 
the  eldership  ;  I  hope  not  so  to  be  understood.  I  was 
for  years  a  patient  listener  at  the  feet  of  Dr.  Alexan- 
der, and  I  may  be  permitted  to  say  that  I  passed 
through  Ike  whole  course  of  studies  at  Princeton. 
20  * 


234  TRIAL   OF 

with  no  mean  character ;  for  the  evidence  of  which, 
I  may  refer  to  docuiueiitis  siill  existing  in  thai,  insiiiu- 
lion  ;  and  as  to  my  pro^^rt's.*  i?ince  leavin<^  tiie  Semi- 
nary, [  cheristi  the  liumhic  hope  that  my  poor  labors, 
with  the  friiila  ihat  have  followed  them,  are  rcijia- 
tercd  in  Heaven;  yet  I  conl'ess  ihat,  wiili  me,  tliere 
is  great  dilficuUy  in  ik'cidioi^.  when  I  iind  men  siue- 
rior  tuto  roElo  r.o  my  sell,  diti\  rin^r  entirely  in  their 
views.  But  lliis  is  not  all.  Not  only  is  the  leftimo- 
ny  exparte,  hut  the  records  of  the  cliurch  helow  are 
not  liere.  Sir,  I  know  why  those  records  are  not 
here.  1  Unow  somelliim^  of  the  origin  ol  the  exisling 
state  of  thiniis,  ami  1  know  tliat  the  Presbytery  had 
notliin":  to  do  with  it.  it  came  I'rom  another  source  ; 
and  wlien  it  was  proposed  lo  withhold  the  recorde, 
M'.  Barnes  was  at  lirst  decidedly  o|)poscd  lo  that 
course,  and  lie  only  su'-iniitied  to  i'  at  List,  because 
the  minds  ol  his  brethren  were  ma(!e  op  to  take  their 
stand  on  a  ^jreat  const iuiiional  question.  How  came 
the  l'res!»yleries  ol  New  Castle  and  Lewes  to  ajrrce 
to  this  measure?  Can  any  one  suppose  that  they 
meant  to  expose  thetnsilves  lo  injury,  merely  lor  tho 
sake  ol  deliending  Mr.  Barnes  ?^  No.  It  was  the  re- 
sult of  a  deliberate  and  i  rayerful  view  of  ili(>ir  duty. 
But  I  ask,  has  not  a  n)an  put  on  trial  for  his  life,  a 
right  to  avail  himseif  of  all  conslitutioi:al  points  w  hich 
are  in  his  lavor  ?  II  sucli  a  man  should  deem  it  not 
expedient  at  this  moment  to  come  to  trial,  and  find 
that  there  is  some  point  in  law,  winch,  if  iircfcsed, 
will  enable  hirn  to  |>ostpon_e  his  trial  to  a  time  more 
favorable  for  him,  is  it  unfair  to  avail  himstll  of  it, 
and  tiios  get  his  trial  put  olf  until  a  time  when,  as  he 
sui)poses,  he  shall  be  more  likely  to  obtain  justice  ? 
I  think  not,  Mr.  BariiCs  was  ready  lor  trial.  He 
expected  to  he  tried,  and  declared  himselt"  to  be 
ready,  but  he  liien  discovers  that  the  constitu- 
tion put  it  in  his  power  to  postpone  his  trial 
till  the  m.eeiin^  of  the  General  Assembly,  and 
he  accordinsriy  objected  to  have  I  lie  trial  now 
proceed.  The  Synod  overruled  his  oojection  and  re- 
solved that  they  would  go  on  with  it.  Very  \4'cll;  that 
IB,  with  them.  But  does  that  justily  uic?  I  am 
placed  here  on  judjjmcnt  on  my  fellow  man.  Will  it 
justify  me  to  say  that  the  Synod  is  resolved  that  the 
trial  shall  proceed  ?  It  will  not.  I  am  stag-ojered, 
and  feel  at  a  loss  to  proceed.  I  confess  I  was  sur- 
prised to  hear  it  said  by  Dr  Junkin  on  this  floor,  that 
if  Mr.  Barnes  chose  to  sutler  the  trial  to  go  by  default 
it  was  not  our  fault.  I  suppose  a  cause  ^oes  by  de- 
fault when  the  party  prosecuted  doe?;  not  sppc^ir,  or 
neglects  lo  plead,  but  Mr.  Barnes  did  appear  and  did 
put  in  a  plea,  how  then  can  it  be  said  that  lie  has 
suffered  his  cause  to  go  by  dclauli  ?  He  came  befbre 
UB,  he  put  iu  his  pica  to  our  jurisdiction,  and  whea 


MR.    BARNES.  235 

hia  pica  was  over  ruled  he  look  an  appeal  to  n  higher 
court.  He  did  so  under  the  dec  lured  cotiviclioti  that 
he  eould  not  delt'iid  liimstlf  at.  our  bar  without  ad- 
mitliiii?  our  juri^diclion  and  llie  constiiuiicnalily  of 
hi.-?  tri.ii :  Imi,  tins  lie  could  not  do  vviili  a  {rood  con- 
eciencc.  IJc  vv.-is  shut  u\)  to  the  alternative  ol'  either 
takin;;  this  courcse  or  reliisinj?  alto<rethi'r  to  (dead  and 
leitin<f  liiH!  cau.se  ^o  by  default.  For  inyseir,  iiaving 
once  taken  consiiuuional  srround,  coiisisjlency  urines 
me  to  go  lorwiird,  hut  a.s  to  Mr.  Barnes  I  believe  he 
had  more  anxiety  lor  a  Iri.il  ol'  his  rat^e  than  any 
man  here,  and  well  he  nu^ht.  Who  ol"  us.  would 
put  hiin.«ell  iu  Mr.  Biirnes'  ])lace  lor  five  iniuuteg  ?  I 
am  astoni.-:lu(l  to  hear  it  (■■Aid  that  we  are  to  consider 
liiin  as  havinji'  voluntaril)  ciio.-^enio  make  no  defence, 
■wlicn  according  to  his  views  and  his  conscience  he 
could  uiake  none.  On  tlie  wliole,  1  doubt  grrcaily 
wheiher  the  present  trial  is  res-ular  ;  1  doubt  whether 
the  cliargts  have  been  proved  ;  and  I  doubt  whether 
pushing  ilie  Synod  lo  a  final  issue  at  this  lime  will 
not  do  more  hurl  than  good.  We  are  told  indeed 
that  we  are  not  to  regard  consequences :  yet  the  very 
next  moment,  ihe  same  geniiemcn  paint  to  us  tJie 
consequences  of  letting  ^lr.  Barnes  run  at  large  in 
the  most  feailul  colors.  Now  1  repudiate  and  abhor 
this  doctrine,  that  we  are  not  to  look  at  consccjuen- 
ces.  We  ought  to  look  at  them:  we  must  look  at 
them.  The  vvay  to  slop  error  is  not  to  condcMiin  men 
rashly.  You  may  get  a  man  to  correct  his  errors 
wiiilc  you  spare  his  ft'elings,  and  treat  li  ni  a?  a  '-iro- 
thei  :  l)ut  once  opt-idy  denounce  him,  afid  all  the 
means  ingeiuuiy  can  tievise  to  spread  his  book  to  ali 
the  winds  of  heaven  will  not  be  moreeiibctual. 

Mr.  Campbell. 
[Mr.  CampboII  began  to  speak  when  the  usual  hour  of  ad- 
journnierit  was  nearaf  hand,  and  ih;  House  was  very  impa- 
tient: lie  was  fn  qirnliy  interruptfd  by  moiions  to  ur'journ, 
and  finally  yielded  to  the  will  of  the  Syno  i  by  relinquishing 
the  fl)or:  but  belbre  he  resumed  his  seat  he  gave  notice  that 
he  should  prepare  auH  put  into  the  han.ls  of  the  Reporter  a 
written  report  of  his  speech  as  he  had  intendtd  to  present  it 
and  should  r(  quest  ii5 publication  in  place  of  the  breken  re- 
marks he  had  been  permuted  to  submit.  Ma..y  voices  ex- 
pressed hearty  assenc  to  this  arrangement;  whereupon  th» 
Synod  rose  fur  an  adjournment.  Mr.  Campbell  complied 
with  his  pledge,  and  we  have  in  our  possession  his  o^-n  re- 
port <if  the  speech  he  had  in'ended  to  deliver.  We  may,  per- 
haps, insert  it  in  the  Appendi.x. 

Tuesday  Ectnins:,  Nov.  3.— After  recess  the  S7- 
ood  met,  when 


836  TRIAL   OF 

Dr.  Green  quoted  the  followine  passage  from  th€ 
3d  sei'iion  of  the  7th  chapter  of  the  Book  ol  Disci- 
pline : 

After  all  the  parlies  shall  have  been  fully  heard,  and  all 
the  inlbrniaiion  gained  by  llie  members  of  the  superior  judi- 
catory from  those  of  the  inferior  which  shall  be  deemed  re- 
quisite, the  original  parties  and  all  the  members  of  the  inferi- 
or judicatory  shall  withdraw;  when  the  clerk  shall  call  the 
roll,  that  every  member  may  have  an  opporiuniiy  to  express 
his  opinion  on  the  case  ;  after  which  the  final  vote  shall  be 
taken. 

If  I  understand,  said  the  Doctor,  the  position  of 
this  lioLise,  at  this  time,  it  is  that  in  which  we  are 
called  upon  to  give  our  final  vote  in  the  case  before 
us.  1  ihcrerore  iiiovt;  that  the  appeal  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Juiikin  be  sustained,  and  tJiat  the  decit^ion  ol  the 
inferior  court  be  reversed. 

Dr.  CcYLER.  Let  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery 
first  be  read. 

It  was  read  accordingly,  and  the  roll  being  called, 
the  vote  of  Synod  was  taken  a?  follows: 

For  susfainiug — Dr.  Green,  Mr.  Potts,  W.  Latta,  McCalfa, 
Janvier,  Lawrence,C.  Willmms-on,  VViMchesier,  Piirkt-r,  J.  Gn- 
er,  Hanitd,  McEuen, Kennedy. Hradlurd.  blyihe,  Macklin, Elli- 
ot, Algeo*  liidimond,  Cade,  Black,  flkure,  Slrallon,  Wood- 
'ward,  i>i/viinglo7i,  Dr.  Cuyler,  Mr.  ISelville,  Steele,  Dinwiddle^ 
Gibson,  Vanarsdaten,  JLndi,  Stakes,  Durfor,  Brown,  Dr.  Mar- 
tin, J.  LatM,  Boyer,  Kmmy,  Park,  J.  N.  C.  Gm-r,  Duuglass, 
Love,  Ho  iblon,  Russell,  Synimes,  Davis,  Davie,  Rutter,  Getn- 
7net,  Kellon,  SUicard,  Baijless,  WliiUford,  Budianan,  J.  Pat- 
terson,  Marjhj,  Wakn,  fenny,  J.  Love,  Jackson,  Evans, 
Kerr,  Dr.  J.  Iireckinnd<ie,  R.  Ureckenric  gc,  Musj;ravc,  Morri- 
eon,  Alorris,  Pcnhy,  Druru-,  Slcrrtt.  Coleman,  Dr.  Laurie, 
Harrison,  /?.  Htinlcr,  McGiiiley,  Moody,  Wii.«on,  Sharon, 
Buchanan,  J.  Williamson,  HUKinley,  McCathren,  Quay, 
Creigh.  PMttcri'on,  VVaison,  VVynktiop,  White.  Rodgers,  Jor- 
dan, Pulhrton,  Graham,  Blair.  Wuofls,  McCoy,  Irwin,  Cos- 
sal,  Gubhie,  Agncw,  JLinn,  iMcLrane,  Mitligan,  W.  Davis, 
A.  AJcGtiilnj.  lluielusiin,  Linn,  Hill,  McKiuney,  S.  Wilson, 
Moore,  IMcVVillianison,  Olmstead.  Annan,  AlcAlistcr,  Humes, 
Bnlcy,  Kerr,  Gill  and.  Porter,  S.  WiUon,  Burr,  Irwin,  J. 
Wiuun,  Patterson.  Giier,  Snnih,  Todd,  Barber,  Hudson, 
Marr,  Shtddon,  Moorhcad,  Sluddon,  Perguson,  J.  Boyd, 
Clark,  Gritr,  Laird,  liaukin,  Hepburn,  Sanderson,  Galey. 

Againslsuiaining — Ad.nir,  Perkins,  Dr.  Catiicari,  Gray- 
don,  Gilben,  llowe,  Haniniil,  Jones,  Laiidis,  Knox,  Granger, 
M.  Paiierson,  McKim,  t^ampbell,  Browr,  li.  Boyd. 

Non  liquet— Dr.  McDowell,  Dr.  Nei'l,  J.  Barr,  Morri.«on, 
Kirkpa.'rick.  Pnelps,  Po^i,  Bosworth,  Graf!',  Kennedy,  Mc« 
Knight,  Dcwitt,  Dickey,  R.  S.  Grier,  IValtace. 

Excused —  M  orss. 

•  Eldeis  in  italics. 

The  vote  was  declared  to  stand  : 


MR.    T?A.RN'ES, 


237 


For  auslaininff  the  appeal,  143 

Agiiin.<i  siisiainiiig,  16 

Non-liqiit'ia  15 

Excused  from  voting,  1 

Bclbre  the  n^pull  was  announced, 

Mr.  iMusGUAVE  inquired  wlictlier,  if  the  Synod 
vou'd  l.o  PU6i,iiiii  ilie  iijiix^.d,  they  were  as  ol  course  to 
be  understood  its  siisiuiiiiii;;  all  tlic  cliarges  i)refer- 
red  l)y  ilie  appellani. 

Dr.  CuYLt-R.  It  wiis  vvilli  ihal.  view  tliat  I  asked 
for  the  reading' of  liie  senunre  ol'  Presbyter)^.  The 
qupsiion  wac  pui  in  a  j^eneral  Ibrm,  the  vote  is  to  be 
uniler?-t,ood  accortlinjiy. 

Mr.  MusGRAVE.  Then  a  man  mav  sustain  ihc  ap- 
peal i^eiierally,  lliou^^li  lie  does  not.  helit've  some  one 
ofliic  r.luir;;es  to  l)e  j-irnved.  1,  lor  one,  am  not  sat- 
isfied that  any  indiviiioal  cJiari^c  lias  lieen  estaldish- 
ed,  alihough  I  think  that  those  containing  the  mgst 
i-niporiant  errors  huve  Uccn  niadeout. 

Dr.  Catu'.aut.  My  undtr-siaiiding  is  the  very  re- 
verse ol'  lilts.  The  senience  ol"  the  court  holovv  ac- 
quits the  accused.  The  iii)pellant  wants  that  sen- 
tence reversed.  Whoever  voics  to  reverse  it,  votea 
to  condemn  him  in  into,  so  that  if  any  man  helievea 
that  any  part  ol"  ihe  ch  .-rges  liave  not  been  t^ustained, 
he  cannot  vole  to  sustain  the  appeal. 

Mr.  MoRss  was,  after  repeated  api*hcations,  ex- 
cused from  votm^. 

Mr.  HAi?Rt.S'»N  made  an  explanation  imperfectly 
hcanl  hy  ilie  Reporter,  owins:  to  Mr.  H's  distant  po- 
eition,  bat  the  sunstancu  ol  which  he  understood  to 
be,  that  allhough  he  considered  Mr.  Barnes  to  hold 
serious  errors,  yet  he  was  not  prepared  to  vote  him 
guiliy  ol' heresy. 

The  result  olthe  vote  was  now  ollicially  announc- 
ed to  stand  asTollows: 

For  sustaining,  143 

A:;ainst  sustaining,     \6 
Non-liqiitts,  1(3 

Leaviri;!?  the  actual  majority  in  favor  of  sustaining 
the  iippeal.  111. 

So  the  appeal  of  Dr.  Junkin  was  sustained  by  Sy- 
nod. 

Dr.  Lnurie,  Dr.  Cuyler,  Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  Dr. 
Martin,  Mr.  Liiiii,  Mr.  Majiiidey,  with  Messrs.  Hep- 
burn, Cassatt  and  Morris,  were  api^ointed  a  commit- 
tee to  dravv  up  a  niinate  expressive  of  the  decision  of 
Synod. 

[Mr.  R.  Breckinridge  now  introduced  a  letter  in 
relerence  to  sofneiiiin:^  which  had  been  said  in  a  prior 
stage  of  tne  proceeiliu^s  in  retiard  lo  the  minutes  of 
the  2d  Presbytery  of  Piiiiadelphia,  and  in  wliich  he 
understood  the  ch  iraclcr  ol  Mr.  Boartiman,  Clerk  of 
the  Presbytery,  lo  have  been  nuplicattd.  The  letter 
was  exculpatory  of  Mr.  Boarduian,  Ironi  all  blame  ia 


S38  TRIAL    OF 

the  matter.  Mr.  Breckinridge  commented  with  some 
severity  on  what  he  underetood  an  attempt  by  Mr. 
Duffield  to  throw  the  responsibility  oftbe  non  produc- 
tion oftlie  Presl)yrerii»l  records  on  the  negk>ct  oI'Mr. 
Boardmiin.  Mr.  Uutlield,  in  reply,  utterly  derned  alt 
such  intentioii,  and  aj'i)ealcd  to  iliose  who  had  heard 
his  Jan£uage.  He  rcsj  ondcd  with  warmth  to  what 
he  coiisitiered  an  unlbuntled  charge,  and  expressed 
much  personal  regard  lor  Mr.  Doardman.  It  appear- 
ed, on  the  whole,  that  Mr.  Breckinridt^e's  impression 
had  arisen  from  a  misiinderstanding,  and  ihai  his 
warmth  of  remark  had  been  i)romi)Led  ny  the  desire 
to  vindicate  an  ahseiii  I'ricnd.  The  k-tier  beinjr  a  pri- 
vate o;;e,  was  withdrawn  :  and  the  Reporter  deems 
the  above  all  the  notice  that  it  is  proper  to  take  of 
what  pas.sed  on  the  occasion.] 

Mr.  Winchester,  Irom  the  committee  appointed  to 
draw  up  a  report  in  answer  to  ihc  appeal  ol"  ihe  2d 
Presbytery  of  Pliila-!el|)hia,  presented  the  iollowinf?: 

The  commiitee  on  the  paper  purporting  to  be  an  appeal, 
&c.  of  the  Assembly's  Second  I'resbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
from  ihe  vote  of  censure  passed  by  Synod,  made  the  follow- 
ing report,  which  was  accepted  and  adopted,  and  is  as  follows, 
viz : 

The  Committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  minute  in  relation 
to  the  appeal  of  the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery,  against 
the  decision  of  this  Synod,  declaring  the  conduct  of  said 
Presbytery  in  endeavoring  to  embarrass  the  proceedings  of 
Synod  in  the  case  of  Dr.  .lunkin  against  Rev.  Albert  tJarnes 
to  be  obstmate,  unjust,  &c.  l)eg  leave  to  report,  that  said 
Presbytery  have  suited  in  their  appeal  that  their  widiholding 
the  recorJs  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes  was  the  ground  of  the 
decision  appealed  from.  That  this  constituted  a  part  of  the 
ground  your  committee  readily  admit,  hut  the  decision  of 
Synod  declares  the  whole  conduct  of  slid  Presbytery  in  the 
premises  to  be  obstinate,  unjust,  &c.  The  said  Presbytery 
have  moreover  erred  in  declaring  that  Synod  refused  to  con- 
sider the  plea  to  the  juristliciion  of  :he  Synod  over  the  case 
of  Mr.  Barnes.  The  records  of  Synod  show  that  said  plea 
was  duly  considered  and  soleamly  overruled  by  a  vote  of  the 
house.  It  was  declared  to  be  no  bar  to  the  further  proceed- 
ings of  Synod  in  the  case,  from  which  declarative  decision 
no  appeal,  nor  complair..,  nor  protest  was  entered  by  the 
pf.rty  now  apj-ealing,  and  to  which  they  thereby  prefesbcd  to 
submit.  The  plea  bting  overruled,  and  the  overruling  act  not 
objected  to  in  such  a  way  as  to  arrest  proceeding,',  the  records 
were  again  called  for,  and  again  denied  to  the  Synod.  Both 
the  Appellant  and  Appellee  having  declared  their  readiness 
for  tiial,  they  were  ordered  to  proceed.  But  the  Appellee 
finding  liiat  the  records  were  withheld  by  an  act  of  the  Pres- 
bytery to  which  he  belongs,  and  t«  which  he  made  no  objec- 
tion, declined  to  appear  as  a  party  to  the  trial.  Where- 
upon, the  Synod  being  otherwise  possessed  of  an  authenti- 
cated copy  of  the  proeecdinKs  of  the  lower  judicatory,  declared 
the  conduct  of  said  judicatory  to  be  obstinate,  unjust,  &c.; 
aud  resolved  to  proceed  with  the  trial,  leaving  the  responsi- 


MR.   bakNes.  239 

bility  of  not  appearing  to  answer  ihe  charges,  and  of  with- 
holding the  records  in  the  case,  lo  rest  upon  ihose  who  sought 
thereby  to  embarrass  the  proceedings  of  Synud,  and  to  de- 
feat a  final  issue  of  the  case.  Aajainst  the  first  part  of  thia 
decision  ;  namely,  that  which  declares  ihn  conduct  of  the 
lower  judicatory  to  be  obstinate,  unjust,  &c.  the  appeal  in 
question  is  taken.  The  Bjuk  of  Discipline,  <  hap.  vii,  sec.  iii, 
sec.  xvj,  declares  thai  "'it  shall  always  be  deemel  the  duty 
of  the  judicatory  whose  jud<^ineni  is  app-aied  from,  to  send 
authentic  coiiies  of  ihuir  records,  and  of  ihe  whoh;  testimony 
relaiiiif;  to  the  matter  of  the  appeal.  And  if  any  judicatory 
snail  niglect  its  duty  in  tiiis  rci-peci,  especially  if  ihereby  an 
appell  ml,  who  has  conducted  wiih  re!;uliriiy  on  his  part,  13 
deprived  of  the  pnvi!et>e  ol  liavuig  his  appeal  seasonably  is- 
sued, such  judicatory  siiall  be  censured  accordinsj  10  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  ca«e."  When  the  Assembly's  ISecond 
Presbytery  wrre  called  upon  for  the  authenticated  records  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  B-iriics,  ihey  answered  in  writing,  wiiich  an- 
swer is  on  record,  that  the  Synod  had  no  jurisdiction  of  said 
case,  iiiasmucli  as  the  said  Presbytery,  at  the  time  the  appeal 
was  taken,  belongtd  to  the  Synod  of  Deiawaie,  and  that 
thereiore  they  refused  to  surrender  tlie  records  in  (jiestion.  It 
appeared,  nioreovi  r,  from  ihe  acknowledgment  of  the  staled 
cletk  of  said  Presbviery,  that  these  records  were  in  the  house. 
The  Synod  averruieU  ilio  plea  to  theit  jurisdiction  on  the 
ground  that  the  appeal  was  laken  to  this  Synod  without  ob- 
jeciion  on  the  part  of  the  said  Presbytery,  it  being  fully  ascer- 
tained that  no  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Delaware  could  be 
held,  because  by  the  act  of  the  last  As5emli|y  it  would  be  dis- 
solved prior  to  the  date  to  which  it  stood  adjourned.  It  more- 
over appeared,  fr'.'in  the  acknovvleili,'ment  of  Mr.  Barnes,  that 
he,  (although  the  party  accused.)  knew  no  hing  of  the  inten- 
tion of  ihc  Presbytery  or  of  any  of  its  members,  to  enter  a 
plea  until  he  came  to  this  Synod.  The  Presbytery  appealing, 
state  as  the  ground  of  their  appeal,  that  they  appeared,  that 
they  were  ccnsund  unheard.  But  the  records  of  toe  Synod 
will  show  that  after  the  refusal  of  said  Presbytery  to  deliver 
up  the  records,  the  Synod  ordered  that  said  Presbytery  forth- 
with lay  their  records  on  the  table  of  Synod,  copies  of  which 
order  were  furnished  to  the  Jloderator  and  slated  clerk  re- 
spectively of  said  Presbytery.  In  reply  to  this  order  the  said 
Presbytery  presented  10  Synod  a  paper  duly  authenticated, 
reiterating  their  relusal  and  pleading  as  their  reason  that  the 
Synod  had  no  jurisdiction  ovei  the  case.  The  prosecutor  also 
applied  to  the  stated  clerk  of  the  lower  judicatory,  for  an  au- 
thenticaied  copy  of  the  records  in  his  case,  which,  though  a 
matter  of  right  to  the  prosecutor,  was  nevertheless,  formally 
denied  him,  which  denial  is  on  record.  Thus  it  appears  that 
after  repeated  and  proper  steps  being  taken  by  the  Synod,  ta 
procure  the  records,  the  said  Presbyiery  continued  to  with- 
hold them,  whereupon  the  Synod  made  thu  decision  from 
which  lire  appeal  vyas  taken.  The  said  Presbyiery  were 
heard  by  an  authenticated,  and  being  out  of  the  house,  as  the 
judicatory  from  winch  the  appeal  was  taken,  they  could  take 
no  part  in  the  discussion  of  any  question  connected  with  the 
appeal. 

Had  the  absence  of  the  records  been  owing  tamere  neglect 
on  the  part  of  the  lower  judicatory,  the  decision  of  the  Synod 


240  TRIAL    OK 

would  doubtlrss  have  been  diflereni  from  what  it  is.  But  thft 
truth  is  otherv\ise.  The  pnrnes,  togetlier  with  the  lower  judi- 
catory, caine  i:p  to  Syuod  wiUi  tlie  expsctaiiiin  and  uiider- 
Btnndiii;;  that  the  tii;il  would  regularly  proctcd.  VVhy  elso 
were  the  records  brought  here?  Nut  to  be  reviewed,  for 
if  the  junsilicii'Ki  of  this  Sjynud  coniuieuced  with  liie  aciual 
union  <if  the  iwo  Synodn,  it  was  noi  competent  to  ihis  hody 
to  review  ihci'' nnteriur  prureudings'.  If  ii«»  such  unders'arid- 
ing  existed,  why  was  Mr.  Barnes  Kept  in  utter  ianijriiricc  of 
the  course  coiiicmplated  by  the  Presbytery  lo  which  he  be- 
longs? 

Your  committee  would  observe  by  the  way,  that  they  can- 
not iin  t;;iiie  ihai  ihe  General  Ajsenilily,  in  pa^ssln{r  the  mi- 
nute Ijy  which  the  Synods  of  Delaware  and  i*hilad<  Iphia  were 
united,  ever  eonteinpiaitd  the  around  no >v  taken  by  the  Aa- 
Beml)ly's  2J  Presiiyiery,  nor  thai  they  ever  iniendcd  lo  screen 
those  doiPiis  of  the  Pre^hyieri.-B  formerly  attached  to  the  Sy- 
nod of  I'elaware,  which  took  phicc  t)etweeii  the  meeting  of 
eaid  A?snnl:|y  and  ihe  Synod  i>f  Philadelphia,  Iroiii  the  re- 
view and  conirul  of  a  superior  juclx-itory. 

When  the  book  makes  it  ilieduiy  of  a  superior  judicatory 
to  censure  the  court  below,  f.jr  coriiutnaciousily  withholding 
their  rec;ords  in  a  case  of  ai  peal,  your  commitice  believe  that 
It  docs  not  contemplate  nor  make  proxision  (or  a  judicial  pro- 
cess ag.iinst  the  olti^nding  prti'hyiery,  in  ord  r  to  arrive  at  the 
result  against  which  this  appial  was  taken.  The  fact  o(  with- 
holding the  records  in  tins  case  i-i  ailmiiied.  It  is  a  matter  of 
record.  The  eirciiinstanocs  which  murk  the  conduct  of  the 
Assembly's  2d  Presbytery  in  ihis  matter,  as  they  appear  on 
recoro,  do,  in  the  jucigimiil  of  this  Synod,  reader  that  con- 
duct highly  eonluniaeiou.".  This  juilj;inent  the  Synod  have 
solminly  expressed.  In  a  case  of  review  and  control,  where 
the  Presbytery  under  review  is  chaig<d  by  common  fame 
with  fProssirre;;ulariti(  s  in  iheir  proceedings,  ihe  book  requires 
a  ciiaiion  to  be  issued  to  the  Presbytery  alleged  to  have  of- 
fended. But  here  was  no  charge  either  by  common  lame  or 
by  a  responsible  party.  The  facts,  which  this  Synod  declare 
render  tlie  conduct  of  the  Assembly's  2d  Presbyiery  couiu- 
macious,  arc  odmittid  facts,  as  the  records  show. 

The  book,  uuqiiesiionaMy  never  makes  it  necessary  for  one 
judicatory  in  censuiiiig  another  for  contumacy  to  cite  and 
hear  the  ofiending  body,  lor  contumacy  consists  in  not  re- 
garding the  citation  and  in  refu.-^ing  to  be  heard.  Hence  it 
may  be  iupossihle  ever  to  censure  a  body  for  contumacy,  if 
it  be  essential  to  the  justness  of  such  ci.nsure,  that  the  party 
offending  should  bo  heaid  in  defence.  Your  coiuniitKe  there- 
fore believe  that  there  is  no  real  ground  of  appeal  in  the  case 
before  us,  but  at  the  samo  time  recommend  tlie  appointment 
of  a  coinmiitte  to  defeird  the  decision  appealed  from,  when  it 
comes  up  belore  the  Ass  mbiy. 

Mr.  11.  Ori:;ckini;ii)ge  movitl  that  the  report  he  re- 
ceiveil,  iidopied,  and  put  on  the  reeorcis  nCihe  Synod. 

Mr.  Ji5ARN]::s.  There  i.s  au  error  in  the  recrd  in 
reUitioii  to  111)  self.  1  think  it  is  tJiere  ptiid  tlmil  was 
asUeJ  if  I  liad  any  objection  lo  make  to  the  decicioa 
pi"  Synod. 

Mr.  VViNcfnESTER.  1  will  read  that  part  again.  [IIq. 
yead  the  clause  accordingly.] 


HR.    BARNES.  241 

Mr.  Barnes.    That  ia  what  I  complain  of. 

Mr.  WiNOHKaTER.  [have  stated  the  lUc.t  accordine: 
to  my  recollection.  If  it  is  not  correct,  I  hope  it  will 
be  made  so. 

Mr.  11.  BRECKiNRmcjE.  My  recollection  corresponds 
with  tiial  of  Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  MoiiKi.soN.  My  recollection  is,  that  Mr. 
Barnes  saui,  iliai  aIthoui;h,  if  it  wore  the  case  of 
another,  he  niiifht  hav*;  done  the  same  thintr  which 
his  Pr(\-!bytcry  had  now  done,  yet  in  liis  own  case  he 
would  not,  f^ive  an  opinion. 

The  report  having  been  slightly  amended,  was 
then  adopted. 

Dr.  J.  BuECKiNinncK,  from  the  committee  on  popery, 
made  the  loliowidfr  report: 

The  Comniiitee  lo  wliotn  was  rcfern  d  the  sii'-jent  of 
Poperv,  with  insiruciions  to  report  an  appropriac  miiiule  for 
the  ad jpii.Jii  of  Synod,  beg  lenvi;  re?pecttully  lo  recommend 
the  adopiion  of  the  foljovvins;  resolutions,  viz. 

Isl.  'I'liflt  it  be  rrcotninundt-'il  lo  ail  tlio  ministers  under 
their  care  to  pre:u-li  from  year  to  year  on  the  3lsi  of  October, 
(or  on  tiie  Sabbath  iiiimediaicly  prec(ding  or  followmg  ihat 
day)  a  sermon  or  sermons  designed  to  cjmmernoraie  the 
ever  memorable  reformation  frcm  Popery,  selling  forth  its 
neces  iiy,  nature,  and  eff'eel?,  and  the  itnporiance  of  keeping 
alive,  aiui  extending  its  glorious  jirinciples,  especially  in  ihis 
age  and  country. 

2d.  That  ibis  Synod  with  a  view  to  contribute  still  farther 
to  tlie  same  geni  ral  object,  .nppoint  a  commiiiee  of  nine  con- 
sisting of  five  minisiers  and  lour  elders,  who  shall  be  author- 
ised to  appoint  subordinate  Cvimmiiirps  in  the  difl-rent  Pres- 
byteries connected  v\iih  this  Synod,  as  ihcy  may  deem  pro- 
per. 

3d.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  this  committee  to  aid  in  the 
circulation  of  authentio  and  judieijus  books  and  tracts  on 
this  rontrovtrsy,  especially  of  >\ich  as  are  fumJed  upon  the 
accredited  standards  of  the  Pi"pal  communion,  and  to  adopt 
any  other  means  wbicii  to  them  may  stein  expedient,  and 
adapted  lo  difilise  light  iu  the  spirit  ol  love. 

Alter  a  brief  explanation  by  Dr,  B.  stating  that  the 
day  proposed  in  tl:e  report  wris  that  memorahle  day 
on  wiiicii  the  intrepid  relormer  nailed  upon  the  church 
doors  his  Theses  ngainst  Teizel — the  report  was  ac- 
cepted and  miopted :  ami  Messrs.  Green,  Cnyler, 
Blyibe,  VV.  Eii'des,  VVoudward,  McKean,  Brown, 
and  Joseph  P.  Eiiirles,  were  appointed  a  committee. 

Messrs.  Winchester,  MusiTave,  and  INIcKinney 
were  appointed  a  committee  to  dtd'enti  the  kSynod  in 
ail  appeals  to  the  next  General  Assembiy. 

The  Synod  now  iiroceeded  to  take  up  the  report 
on  the  fast  day.    It  commenced  as  follows : 

That  from  the  accounts  received  from  the  Presbyteries  in 
their  narratives  on  the  state  of  religion,  it  appears  that  there 
has  been  through  the  year,  in  our  churches  generally,  with 
few  exceptions,  an  absence  of  divine  influence. 


242  TRIAL    OF 

Mr.  MiisGRAVE  observed  that  the  report  epoke  of 
the  ubseiice  ol  divine  influenres  during  the  i)ast 
year,  and  suirircsted  the  propriety  of  insertin;j  the 
word  "  special"  i)etbre  divine  infiuences. 

Mr.  McCalla  wi.-;lieil  the  whole  clause  stricken 
out.  It  was  his  decided  conviction  thai  the  position 
there  siattd  wa.s  incorrect.  He  did  not  heiieve  that 
there  was  any  evidence  to  conclutle  that  ilivine  inllu- 
ence  had  been  withdrawn  from  the  honnds  of  the 
Synod.  On  the  conirnry,  he  did  believe  that  the 
present  a.spi.'ct  and  condition  of  that  budy  e.xliiliited 
more  fvidtnice  ol  true  divine  inrlu^nce  than  had  been 
known  in  tiic  Prcshytcrian  church  lor  twenty  years. 
There  was  a  greut  (hllerence  between  the  edification 
of  ach.irchaiul  the  extension  ol  a  chuccli  by  mere 
addition  of  nieadiers.  I  think,  said  Mr.  McG..  that 
what  lias  transpired  this  evcnin!>-,  contains  an  cvi- 
den'-p  of  divine  inlUtence,  sucli  us  sliould  warm  all 
our  hearts. 

Alici  eume  further  conversation,  the  word  special 
was  iusjerted,  and  the  report  adopted. 

The  report  ol  the  auiiitor  on  tlie  treasurer's  ac- 
counts was  received  and  adopted. 

Mr.  Annas,  from  the  comniitiee  appointed  to  ex- 
aminina  ilic  records  ol  the  2  1  Piesbyiery  ol"  Philadel- 
phia, reported  tiiat  iliose  recorils  liad  not  come  itiio 
their  hands,  nor  had  they  taken  any  steps  to  obtain 
them,  because  they  were  satislied  that  il"  lliey  bad 
made  liie  demand,  it  would  not  have  been  complied 
with. 

Mr.  Winchester.  I  liope  the  committee  will  be 
instruct  I'd  to  ask  for  the  records,  and  if  they  are  re- 
fused, thai  the  reasons  given  lor  the  relusal  will  be 
recorded. 

Mr.  Annan.  Is  it  then  our  duty  to  go  to  the  offi- 
cers of  that  Preshyiery.  anil  demand  the  books  ? 

MuDEisAroR.    I  think  the  committee  ou^lit  to  do  so. 

Dr.  AlcUowLLL.  1  move  that  tiie  report  o(  the 
committee  siaiin;^  that  tht;  books  have  noi  been  put 
into  tluir  hands,  lie  accepted  as  sutficient,  and  tiiat 
the  committee  be  discharged. 

Mr.  \V'iNcnEsTE({.  1  oppose  that  motion.  In  an 
ordinary  case  ihut  mi»ht  he  jiroper  enou^'h,  hut  this 
case  is  peculi.ir.  Our  report  to  tiie  As.-euibly  states 
that  the  min.iieis  ot"  thai  I'resbytery  are  here,  and 
how  will  il  look  lor  us  to  report  ihat  they  have  not 
been  ex  imined  ?  I  wish  it  to  ai'pear  that  tiie  Pres- 
bytery have  rKfu-:ed  to  s  ib-nit  their  minutes  lor  ia- 
Bpection  from  the  last  np'Hiin^  o!  the  SynotI  oi  D. -Id- 
ware  up  to  ihis  time.  VViihin  that  period  tht:  Pres- 
bytery may  have  t)een  guilty  of  srro-s  irrejjularities. 
Is  tli  It  record  to  sleep  forever?  1  liope  not  ;  and  I 
hope  th;;  chiirman  of  tb^*  commidee  wili  make  a  for- 
mal application  lor  the  Preubyicrial  book. 


MR.    DARNIS.  243 

Mr.  Annan  now  requested  that  the  Moderator  of 
the  Synod  would  inquire  whether  the  books  were  in 
the  louse. 

MoDKiiATOiJ.  Are  Ihe  records  of  the  A?senihly'« 
Second  I'resbyterv  of  Piid.idelphia  here  prcseiii? 

Mr.  Adair.  The  riieiiihers  of  that  Prebbyiery  aro 
not  now  present,  in  tlie  lionse. 

Dr.  Ely.  I  do  not  knoiv  vviiether  the  minutes  are 
present  or  not,  but  1  believe  they  are  not  in  tha 
house. 

Mr.  Annan  now  renewed  his  report,  and  the  com- 
mil  tec  were  discharged. 

Tlie  Synod  now  proceeded  to  consider  the  report 
of  the  c  niiriittee  appointed  to  arranjre  tlie  Presbyte- 
ries, and  the  first  rejwrt  of  Dr.  Cuyler  on  that  sub- 
ject was  read. 

Dr.  McDowell  presented  a  remonstrance  of  tha 
2d  Presbytery  of  Philadu'lpliia,  (syriodiciil,)  against 
the  proposed  arrangement  for  presbyteriai  bounda- 
rie?. 

1.0.1  this  subject  .1  debate  of  much  animation  took  phicej 
but  as  it  was  necessarily  of  a  characier  in  a  great  measure 
local,  and  as  die  great  lengUi  of  this  report  renders  it  desira- 
ble that  it  should  be  as  much  curtailed  as  propriety  will  ad- 
mit, we  s'lall  content  ourselves  with  a  very  brief  notice  cf 
what  was  said.] 

Dr.  Neill  stated  the  wish  of  the  2d  Pre.'^bytery 
(synodic  il)  to  be,  that  the  line  of  division  at  present 
exist ini^  between  the  Presbyteries  should  not  be  dis- 
turbed. He  dwelt  on  the  harmonious  and  happy 
condition  of  the  Presbytery,  snd  their  desire  not  to 
be  broken  in  upon  by  any  new  arrani^ements  which 
Bhould  mix  them  up  with  the  dis|)utes  atid  agitations 
which  had  so  unhappily  convulsed  the  churches  of 
Philadel|)liia  within  the  last  year. 

Dr.  McDo\ve:.l  warmly  opposed  the  plan  of  throw- 
ing all  the  Presbyteries  together.  It  would  form  the 
enormous  body  of  one  hundred  and  forty  memberp. 
He  wan  avvare  of  the  difTiculty  arising  i'r&m  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Assembly's  2d  Presbytery,  and  was 
settled  in  the  opinion  that  it  ought  either  to  be  dis- 
solved or  limited.  Il"left  in  its  present  state,  it  would 
soon  be  in  |)Ossessioa  uf  the  whole  city  of  Philadel- 

Rhiii.  He  (hvelt  upon  the  frequent  changes  which 
ad  taken  jilace,  the  new  difficulties  and  perplexities 
etill  recurring,  and  declared,  with  a  groan,  that  his 
heart  was  fairly  broken  down  under  the  burden  of 
such  a  state  of  things.  All  he  wanted,  v/as  to  know 
•where  he  was,  and  there  he  wished  to  remain  ;buta8 
things  now  stood,  nothing  was  fixed,  nothing  could 
be  calculated  on,  and  he  looked  forward  to  every 
meeting  of  Synod  with  drcnd.  As  soon  as  any  good 
began  to  be  done,  it  was  all  broken  up,  and  the  hope* 
of  the  best  friends  of  the  church  utterly  blighted. 


244  TRIAL   OF 

He  had  anqlher  plan,  which  he  thought  Would  obvi* 
ate  much  ol'the  evil  now  complained  vW 

Alter  some  convers.'.iion,  in  \vliicl\  Messrs.  Win- 
chester, J.  I3recl<inriJL''e,  and  I3elville  look  part,  Dr. 
McDowell  read  the  pi  ui,  but  did  not  press  it. 

Mr.  James  PArrEn^oN  said,  liiat  liKlore  his  Presby- 
tery was  desJroyed,  lie  wisiied  to  be  iiidijigcd  in  a 
few  words.  He  was  eiilirely  oppo-ed  to  iJie  plan  of 
throwing  the  tliree  Pre^b)  leries  into  one  mass.  He 
had  not,  lor  twenty-one  years  past,  enjoyed  as  much 
personal  comfort  as  since  their  Presbytery  had  been 
set  olf  into  a  separate  body.  Since  that  time,  all 
thinifs  had  been  ^oing  on  well ;  and  what  was  the 
unpardonable  sin  for  wliiidi  ihe  Presbytery  was  to  bo 
put  to  death?  Was  it  bee  uise  they  had  or^^anized 
tour  or  fiv>'.  churches  ?  Was  it  so  great  a  crime  to 
make  ne.v  churches  anion?  a  population,  in  the  city 
and  county,  of  two  hundred  tiiousand  persons,  not 
one  fuiirth  of  whom  went  to  any  place  of  wor.'^hip  ? 
Was  the  Synod  resolved  that  the  quarrels  in  Phila- 
delphi  I  should  continue?  Mr.  P.  adverted  to  (he 
comm  indin<?  station  and  extensive  influence  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  Slates,  and  the 
pernicious  etfects  u|>on  that  influence  ol  her  utdiappy 
divisions.  As  an  arofument  lo  enforce  his  warning' 
against  what  he  considered  an  oppressive  course  of 
measures,  he  adverted  to  the  slate  of  the  church  in 
England  in  1662,  and  went  at  considerable  length  in- 
to a  history  of  the  persecutions  of  the  evangelical 
ministers,  by  the  hi^h  church  party  in  that  kingdom, 
and  the  issue  of  the  struggle  in  leading  to  the  act  of 
Tolera'.ion. 

Mr.  GiDsoN  inquired  whether  this  was  in  order, 
observing,  that  the  Synod  had  heard  this  whole  detail 
as  ofter  as  Mr.  Patterson  had  spoken. 

Mr.  Patterson  resumed,  and  insisted  that  the 
case  was  in  point,  as  going  to  show  the  injurious 
effect  and  abortive  result  of  all  attempts  to  coerce 
the  consciences  of  men  by  ecclesiastical  authority. 
The  Svnod  never  could  squeeze  the  heads  of  minis- 
ters all  into  one  shape.  The  trial  in  England  liad 
failed,  raid  the  attempt  in  America  would  etiil  more 
signally  fail.  He  adverted  to  the  spotless  character 
and  high  religious  attainments  of  those  who  were  the 
objects  of  persecution  and  contumely  by  the  zealots 
of  the  hich  church  party,  among  whom  were  such 
men  as  Baxter,  Flavel,  Henry,  Mead,  Bates,  Howe. 
&c.  and  the  discontent,  turmoil,  and  faction  produced 
by  such  a  course,  and  conjured  the  Synod  not  to  pur- 
sue a  course  of  conduct  which  must  rend  the  Gene- 
ral Asseml)ly,  and  with  it  the  whole  Presbyterian 
church,  and  eventually  prostrate  the  influence  of  the 
greatest  religious  body  now  on  earth.  He  adverted 
to  the  passage  in  Ezekiel,  where  Israel  and  Judah 


-we  represented  as  two  sticks  in  the  prophet'e  haml, 
and  dwelt  upon  Uie  hajipy  ellect  of  union  in  t-trength- 
ening  every  ijood  dei^ign.  He  knew  ihat  Synod  tuid 
the  power,  if  ihey  chose  to  use  it,  of  crushing?  the  2d 
Presbytery,  and  they  niiglit  push  rnacters  so  far,  as 
to  leave  to  certnin  nunisters  no  other  akernalive  hut 
to  retire  and  form  voluntary  associations.  Thus  a 
high  toned  Presbyterian  body  would  become  them- 
selves tiiG  promoters  of  conijregalionahsm.  For 
one,  he  shoukl  deeply  rejifrct  such  a  result;  and  he 
warned  the  gentlemen  who  were  urging  on  this  slate 
of  things,  to  remember,  that  it  was  the  lay  members 
of  the  church  who  held  the  wealth  of  the  church,  to 
whom  they  had  to  look  for  the  support  of  their  semi- 
naries. They  might  rely  upon  it  that  matters  would 
not  end  here.  Gentlemen  might  find  their  resources 
dried  up,  before  they  were  aware  of  it ;  but  be  tlie 
result  what  it  might,  he  repeated  the  warning,  that 
to  crush  all  minds  into  one  mould  was  a  vain  and 
futile  attemi)t,  and  so  they  wovdd  find  it. 

Dr.  Green  made  a  brief  reply.  He  disclaimed  ail 
attempt  at  coercing  any  body.  All  he  sought  or  de- 
sired, was,  that  brethren  who  walked  together  should 
be  agreed.  As  to  the  voluntary  associations  of 
which  the  brother  had  spoken,  he  wished,  with  all 
his  heart,  they  might  be  formed,  if  such  was  the 
brethren's  desire.  As  to  the  instances  cited  from  the 
persecutions  of  the  British  church,  there  was  no  an- 
alogy between  that  case  and  ilio  state  of  things  ia 
this  countrv.  That  was  a  tyrannical  attempt  to  en- 
force the  forms  and  rites  of  episcopacy  upon  men 
who  wereconscientiously  opposed  lo  them.  Nothing 
of  the  kind  was  thought  of  here.  The  Synod  souglit 
no  religious  establic^hment,  but  merely  to  secure 
such  a  state  of  things  as  that  those  who  thought 
alike  should  go  together. 

Mr.  Patterson  responded,  and  expressed  the  ex- 
treme reluctance  with  which  he  should  be  compelled. 
10  leave  many  to  whom  his  heart  was  united,  and 
whom  he  considered  as  the  very  life's  blood  of  the 
church;  yet  he,  and  those  who  acted  with  him,  had 
now  been  told  that  they  might  sro  olf,  and  the  sooner 
the  belter.  The  father  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
had  expressed  his  hearty  consent  to  their  becoming 
Congregational ists;  but  were  there  no  differences 
among  Oie  orthodox — on  the  baptism  of  children,  for 
example?  Some  required  faith  in  both  parents, 
some  in  one  only;  while  others  would  baptize  the 
children  of  those  who  merely  ledaraorallife.  Would 
the  father  say  to  these,  his  orthodox  coadjutors, 
■'  Go  off,  we  can't  agree"  ? 

Dr.  Laurie,  from  the  committee  appointed  to  pre- 
pare a  minute  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes,  now  brought 
in  the  following  report; 

21 


24G  TniAL  OF 

"  The  committee  appointed  to  briii^  in  a  minute  in  the  case 
of  appeal  from  the  (Asscml)iy's)  2(1  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia, wherein  George  Junkin  is  Appellant,  and  Albert  Barnes 
Appellee,  submit  the  following  report  and  resolutions. 

This  case  has  been  brought  up  regularly  by  appeal^  as  re- 
ported by  the  Judicial  Committee  of  Synod,  andunanmiousiy 
resolved  by  the  Synod  itself. 

The  original  parlies,  namely,  Dr.  Junkin  and  Mr.  Barnes 
being  called  on,  answered  that  they  were  ready  personally  to 
proceed  with  the  cause. 

Subsequently  the  Assembly's  2d  Presbytery  being  called 
on  for  their  records  of  this  case,  when  tried  by  it  refused  to 
produce  them ;  and  upon  being  formally  ordered  to  lay  them 
on  the  table,  still  refused  to  allow  the  Synod  the  possession 
of  their  records.  Upon  tiiis,  the  Appellee,  (Mr.  Barnes)  put  in 
a  paper  pleading  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Synod,  and  declining 
the  trial,  and  withdrew  from  tiie  Synod. 

Thereupon  the  Synod  passed  orders  that  the  Presbytery 
had  acted  disorderly,  &c.  and  censuring  them  therefore ;  that 
the  Synod  still  found  itself  in  circumstances  to  proceed  to 
trial;  and  that  Mr.  Barnes'  paper  and  the  plea  contained 
therein,  was  no  bar  to  the  regular  issuing  of  the  case. 

Then  the  appellant  was  fully  heard.  The  Appellee  was 
called  and  did  not  appear.  The  members  of  the  (Assembly's) 
2d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  being  called  on  for  explana- 
tions of  their  decision,  put  in  a  formal  refusal.  The  roll  of 
members  was  called,  and  this  committee  directed  to  prepare 
a  minute. 

1.  That  the  appeal  was  orderly  and  regular,  and  ought  to 
have  been  brought  to  this  Synod,  and  issued  by  it,  is  apparent, 
from  the  reasoning  and  references  in  the  minute  censuring 
the  Presbytery,  and  from  the  VII.  Chap.  3  Sec.  and  6  sub. 
sec.  Discipline ;  and  Chap.  XII.  Sec.  4,  Form  of  Government. 
The  duty  thus  regularly  laid  upon  this  Synod,  by  the  Appel- 
lant, with  the  approval,  as  appears  to  us,  in  the  first  instance, 
both  of  the  Appellee  and  the  lower  court,  we  seemed  called 
on  to  perform  by  the  voice  of  the  whole  church,  by  the  just 
expectation  of  the  General  Assembly,  by  faithfulness  to  the 
parties,  to  the  world,  to  our  own  souls  and  to  God. 

2.  The  refusal  of  the  Presbytery  to  produce  the  records, 
could  not  operate  to  arrest  the  trial.  1st.  Because  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  records  of  this  body,  in  this  case,  there  was  laid 
before  Synod  all  the  proof  olTered  by  the  Appellant  in  the 
court  below  as  also  copies  of  the  charge  and  sentence.  2d. 
It  is  not  believed  that  the  Appellee  oftered  any  proof,  techni- 
cally so  called,  in  the  lower  court.  3d.  It  is  certain,  that  if 
he  did  oiler  any  proof  it  was  only  what  is  printed  in  his 
"Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,"  out  of  which  also, 
every  word  of  proof  offered  by  the  Appellant  in  the  lower 
court  and  this  also  was  taken.  But  4ih.  This  refusal  of  the 
Presbytery  to  send  up  its  records,  is  contrary  to  its  clear 
duty,  defined  in  Chap.  X.  sec.  9.  Form  of  Government ;  and 
Chap.  VII.  Sec.  3,  and  Sub.  Sec.  16  of  Discipline ;  and  to 
tlie  spirit  and  act  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1835,  relative  to 
the  dissolution  of  the  Synod  of  Delaware.  5th.  The  conduct 
of  the  stated  Clerk  of  that  Presbytery,  in  refusing  the  Appel- 
lant an  attested  copy  of  the  record  in  this  case,  expressly 
violated  the  general  command  laid  on  him  by  Chap.  XX.  of 


MK.    BARNES.  247 

Form  of  Government,  and  the  equally  express  personal  right 
secured  to  the  Appellant  by  Chap.  IV.  Sec.  16,  of  Discipline. 
And  the  conduct  of  both  the  Presbytery  and  its  stated  Clerk, 
is  contrary  to  Chap.  VII.  Sec.  1,  sub.  sec.  1  of  Discipline ;  by 
all  which  references  under  this  (5th)  head,  theconductof  the 
Presbytery  and  Clerk,  are  proven  to  be  foreseen  and  provided 
for,  as'  treated  by  this  body.  See  also  Chap.  IV.  Sec.  10,  13, 
and  15  of  Discipline. 

3.  Upon  the  refusal  of  the  Presbytery  and  Clerk  to  send  the 
records  in  the  orderly  way,  or  to  furnish  the  appellnnt  with  a 
copy  on  application,  it  was  the  part  of  the  appellant,  not  of 
Synod  to  decline  the  trial.  Any  defect  of  regular  proof  would 
tend  directly,  to  his  defeat,  and  possible  condemnation.— (Seo 
chap.  sec.  7  Discipline,  and  chap.  vii.  sec.  3.  sub.  section  14.) 
Besides,  the  principles  of  additional  ■proof,  are  settled,  in 
Chap.  i.\.  Discipline,  passim.  And  in  chap.  vii.  sec.  1.  sub. 
sec.  1,  3,  and  15,  of  Discipline  the  principles  are  clearly  laid 
down  how  this  body  should  in  cases  of  imperfect,  or  fraudu- 
lent records,  or  the  total  absence  of  all  records,  get  at  the 
truth  of  the  case.  And  further,  it  is  well  settled  thiit  in  the 
absence  of  the  best  proof,  even  admitting  that  case  to  be  ours, 
that  which  is  next  best  siiall  be  admitted.  Especially  when 
this  Synod  and  the  appellant  used  every  proper  means  to  ob- 
tain the  supposed  better  proof,  which  is  suppressed  contuma- 
ciously by  the  co-Presbyters  of  the  appellee,  not  only  without 
regular  conipiaint,  but  according  to  his  own  statements  to 
the  Synod,  without  any  disproval  by  him  of  the  principles,  or 
the  particular  act,  of  that  Presbytery. 

4.  When  the  appellee  put  in  his  plea  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  Synod,  and  that  plea  was  overruled,  he  ought  regularly 
to  have  submitted  and  tried  the  appeal.  And  by  so  doing 
would  have  retained  not  only  the  right  of  appeal,  which  by 
refusal  to  submit  to  trial  he  has  lost  (chap.  vii.  »ee.  3.  sub. 
sec.  2,  Discipline ;)  but  after  the  conclusion  of  the  trial  here, 
might  have  appealed  from  the  whole,  or  any  part  of  the 
doings  of  Synod  in  the  case  :  (chap.  vii.  sec.  3.  sub.  sec,  4 
Discipline.)  That  the  refusal  of  the  Appellee  to  proceed  with 
the  case,  should  not  have  arrested  the  cause  is  apparent ;  first 
because  the  Appellant  proceeded  at  his  peril,  and  had  a  right 
to  insist  on  proceeding  :  secondly,  the  Appellee  was  safe  unde- 
fended, unless  the  Appellant  could  fairly  make  out  his  cause, 
which  the  Appellee  and  the  court  below,  declared  he  could  not 
do,  without  the  re'cord  suppressed  by  that  court ;  thirdly,  this 
conduct  of  the  Appellee  was  highly  contumacious,  and  he 
could  have  no  right  to  take  advantage  of  his  own  wrong;  and 
lastly,  the  case  is  fully  provided  for,  and  the  principles  on 
which  our  ecclesiastical  courts  shall  proceed,  in  the  contu- 
macious, or  voluntary  absence  of  parties,  laid  down  in  our 
standards,  (see  chap.  vii.  sec.  3.  and  sub.  sec.  3  and  4  Disci- 
pHne,  for  the  real  grounds  of  appeals;  and  same  chapter  and 
section  and  sub.  section  15,  for  the  real  effect  of  appeals ;  and 
as  to  refusal  of  parties,  chap.  iv.  sec.  10,  11,  13,  Disciphne.) 

5.  That  this  Synod  has  full  power  and  authority  finally  to 
determine  this  case  is  manifest.  The  powers  of  a  Presbytery 
as  compared  with  the  powers  of  a  Synod,  and  the  duties  of 
each  will  appear  by  comparing  chapter  x.  sec.  8,  with  chapter 
X.I  sec.  1  and  4,  of  the  Form  of  Government.    The  duties  of 


248  TRIAL   OF 

this  Synod  as  to  appeals,  are  to  receive  andvtsuc  Hum,  (chap. 
xi.  sec.  4,  Form  of  Government.)  What  is  meant  by  iesuino 
i- obvieus  from  the  last  clause  of  cbap.  vii.  sec.  3,  sub.  sec.  15, 
Discipline.  That  the  authority  of  Synod  covers  the  whole 
case,  is  apparent  from  chap.  vii.  sec.  3,  sub.  10,  and  chap.  iv. 
sec.  17,  Discipline:  Therefore, 

Resolved,  1.  That  in  view  of  the  proof  presented  to  the 
Synod,  and  the  whole  case,  the  decision  of  the  (Assembly's) 
2d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  case  of  the  tharges  of 
the  said  Geo.  Junkin  against  the  said  Albert  Barnes,  be  and 
the  same  hereby  is  reversed,  as  contrary  to  truth  and  right- 
eousness, and  the  appeal  declared  to  be  sustainid. 

2.  That  someof  tlie  errors  alleged  in  the  charges  to  beheld 
by  the  said  Albert  Barnes  are  fundamental ;  and  all  of  them 
contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  in  the 
Unittd  States ;  and  that  they  do  contravene  the  system  of 
truth  therein  lauglit,  and  set  forth  in  the  word  of  God. 

3.  That  the  said  Albert  Barnes  be,  and  he  hereby  is,  sus- 
pended from  the  exercise  of  all  the  functions  proper  to  the 
gospel  ministry,  imtil  lie  sh;ill  retract  the  errors  hereby  con- 
demned, and  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  rcpeniance." 

Dr.  CuYLER  reniiiuled  the  Synod  that  it  was  now 
past  10  o'clock,  and  that  the  farnilies  in  which  they 
■were  guests  would  suOer  incotivenicnce.  He  there- 
fore moved  an  adjoiirntuent,  but  withdrew  the  mo- 
tion, at  the  request  of 

Dr.  J.  Bkeckinhidce,  who  observed,  that  in  some 
of  the  leading'  points  ol'  the  paper  which  had  been  pre- 
sented, he  was  not  prepared  to  concur.  He  could 
not  go  the  Avhoie  length  of  the  pleasure  there  pro- 
posed. He  therefore  moved  the  following  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  last  resolution  propoE^ed: 

Resolved,  However,  from  a  desire  to  avoid  even  the  ap- 
pearance oi  ivjustice  or  ras/i;ic«s,  on  the  part  of  this  Synods 
that  in  this  slate  of  the  business  we  refer  it  to  the  next  6enc- 
ral  Assembly,  to  decide  what  judgment  shall  be  rendered  in 
this  case ;  and  respec'.fully  petition  them  to  pass  such  sentence 
as  they  may  deem  most  conducive  to  the  glory  of  God,  and 
the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church. 

Mr.  Winchester  quoted  the  following  from  the 
book  of  disci])line: 

"A  refert^nce  is  a  judicial  representation  made  by  an  infe- 
rior judicatory  to  a  superior  of  a  case  not  yet  decided ;  which 
representation  ought  always  to  be  in  writing." 
and  argued,  that  inasmuch  as  the  Synod  had  decided 
on  the  merits  of  the  present  case,  it  was  too  late  to 
propose  a  reference,  and  the  resolution  was  there- 
lore  not  in  order. 

The  Moderator  said  he  wished  time  to  make  up 
his  decision  on  so  important  a  point. 

And  therelbre  the  Synod  adjourned  till  half  past 
eight  to- morrow  morning. 

Closed  with  prayer. 

Wednesday  morning,  half  past  8. — Met  and  open- 
ed wi'h  prayer. 


MR.    BARNES.  249 

The  minutes  of  yesterday  liavin!?  been  read  and 
corrected,  and  the  question  beini^  whellier  the  sub- 
stitute moved  by  Dr.  Breckinridi^e  last  eveninj?  to 
the  report  ol  the  committee  appointed  to  draw  up  a 
minute  in  the  case  ol"  Mr.  Barnes,  was  or  was  not  in 
order  :  the  substitute  was  read. 

The  MoDEKATOit  dehvered  ic  as  his  opinion,  after  a 
deUberatc  examination  of  tiie  question  during  the 
recess,  that  the  reference  was  not  in  order.  The 
constitution  confined  that  procedure  called  a  refer- 
ence to  cases  "not  yet  decided, <'  but  lie  conceived 
that  the  present  case  was  decided,  All  the  previous 
steps  had  been  taken  as  decided  by  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, and  the  final  vote  of  the  Synod  had  been  giv- 
en and  recorded.  All  that  remained,  was,  to  give 
the  final  award;  but  a  reference  implied  tliat  ihe 
whole  case,  ab  initio,  was  to  be  gone  over  by  the 
Assembly;  but  he  conceived  that  the  Assembly  could 
not  give  an  award,  unless  it  should  take  up  the  whole 
case  as  an  appeal:  and  therefore  a  reference  niust  be 
out  of  order.  He  delivered  this  opinion,  h&wever, 
with  great  deference  to  the  House.  He  felt  ennrely 
impartial  in  the  matter,  and  should  greatly  prefer 
that  the  House  should  decide  the  point  themselves. 

Dr.  Mc  DovvELL.  Is  there  no  way  to  discuss  this? 
If  an  appeal  is  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  chair  all 
deljate  \yill  be  precluded,  yet  this  is  the  very  vital 
point  of  the  whole  proceeding.  It  is  the  most  im- 
portant question  we  have  had  before  us. 

Dr.  Cathcart.  The  case  is  decided  only  in  part. 
The  appeal  indeed  has  been  sustained,  but  there  is 
no  final  declaration  as  to  what  censure  shall 'be  in- 
Hicted.  The  case  therefore  is  not  decided  and  will 
net  be  until  we  have  pronounced  a  sentence  on  Mr. 
Barnes.  The  Synod  may  pardon  hini,  rebuke  him, 
suspend  Jiim,  or  depose  him,  and  it  has  not  decided 
which  it  will  do. 

The  Moderator  said  that  the  debate  could  not 
proceed. 

Dr.  CuYLER  moved  a  suspension  of  the  rule  in  or- 
der that  it  might  proceed. 

Dr.  Neill.  Were  it  not  for  the  profound  respect 
I  feel  for  your  decision  as  Moderator,  and  the  atl'ec- 
tiou  I  entertain  for  you  personally  I  would  take  an 
appeal. 

The  Mouerator  said  he  should  consider  it  as  not 
the  slightest  mark  of  disrespect,  and  should  indeed 
be  glad  if  such  a  step  were  taken,  but  the  bieihren 
must  remember  ihat  an  appeal  precluded  all  debate. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  Did  you  pronounce  an  offi- 
cial decision  or  merely  express  an  opinion  1 

Moderator.    I  gave  my  judgment  as  Moderator. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  If  you  decided  e.v  officio  I 
cannot  but  think  you  assumed  too  great  a  responsi- 
21* 


ICOU  XKIAL    01 

bility.  There  is  one  peculiarity  in  tlie  case.  The 
ground  taken  in  that  paper  i*^,  tliat  Mr.  Barnes  is  pre- 
cluded from  an  appeal,  and  if  we  are  to  be  precluded 
from  all  debate  on  the  propriety  of  a  relerence  how 
very  peculiar  indeed  will  tlie  state  of  thin^^s  appear. 
The  mouths  of  ail  must  be  shut  up  who  do  not  agree 
in  the  course  already  adopted. 

Mr.  Winchester.  To  afford  an  opportunity  for 
discussion,  I  will  move  that  the  Synod  declare  a  re- 
ference of  this  case  in  the  present  sta^e  of  it  to  the 
General  Assembly  to  be  out  of  order. 

Dr.  Catucart.  If  1  should  now  be  met  by  a  stran- 
ger and  he  should  ask  me  "  Have  you  decided  the 
case  of  Mr.  Barnes?"  I  should  say  "no."  If  he 
should  then  ask  "  Have  you  done  nothing  in  the 
case?"  1  should  reply  "  yes  we  have  sustained  the 
appeal."  "  Then  the  case  is  not  finally  decided  ?" 
"  No,  it  is  not."  With  all  due  deference  to  the 
Moderator's  opinion  I  think  that  that  would  be  tellin*; 
the  man  the  truth  and  unless  1  am  very  stupid  indeed, 
I  think  I  ought  to  know  as  much  about  the  matter  as 
the  Moderator. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  want  such  a  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding adopted  as  shall  be  fair  to  all  parties.  I  con- 
sider it  disorderly  to  move  lo  amend  the  third  in  a 
series  of  resolutions  before  the  first  and  second  have 
been  considered  and  the  third  is  reached  in'tlue  or- 
der. The  regular  course  would  be  to  take  up  the 
first  resolution  proposed  by  the  report,  and  adopt 
or  reject  it,  then  lo  take  up  the  second  and  dispose  of 
it  in  Jjke  manner  ;  and  when  we  get  to  the  third  then 
the  mover  of  the  substitute  may  propose  to  strikeout 
the  third  resolution  and  insert  the  substitute  in  the 
place  of  it.  The  house  will  then  decide  whether  to 
strike  it  out  or  not.  II  they  agree  to  strike  it  out,  the 
whole  question  is  then  open  and  any  other  course 
may  be  proposed.  I  consider  it  as  due  to  all  that 
Ave  have  discussed  and  decided,  and  due  to  candor 
and  to  order  that  the  present  motion  should  not  pass. 
It  jumps  to  a  conclusion  and  shuts  out  all  the  discus- 
sion which  ought  to  precede  it.  Even  if  the  Moder- 
ator were  against  this  course  I  feel  assured  he  would 
waive  his  opinions  out  of  deference  to  the  magnitude 
of  the  subject. 

Dr.  Green.  The  Synod  has  been  brought  into 
confusion  by  the  haste  with  which  it  acted  last  night. 
It  was  disorderly  to  admit  of  two  distinct  propositions 
before  the  House  at  the  same  time.  The  second 
should  not  have  been  introduced  without  a  motion  to 
postpone  the  first.  If  Dr.  Breckinridge  wished  to  in- 
troduce his  substitute,  the  proper  question  was  on  a 
motion  to  postpone  ;  but  the  proposition  which  has 
now  been  made  clears  the  whole  ground.  All  the 
n^embers  have  now  the  perfect  Uberty  to  speak  as 


MR.    BARNES.  251 

much  as  they  want.  I  am  confident  there  is  no  man 
liere  who  wishes  to  confine  tiieni  to  a  dry  aye  or  no. 

Mr.  WiNCHESTEK.  Certainly  it  was  in  order  to  re- 
ceive a  motion  to  amend  tlie  report;  but  if  it  is  de- 
sired tliat  a  division  of  the  question  be  called  lor,  and 
that  the  report  be  taken  up  by  paragraphs,  I  am 
ready  to  withdraw  my  motion. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  I  am  vviUing  that  that  course 
should  be  adopted.  11"  an  ingenuous,  free,  and  open 
discussion  is  to  be  allowed  us,  1  hail  it  with  joy  ;  but 
I  have  no  idea  of  bein^  brow-beaten.  When  it  comes 
to  tJie  result,  many  of  us  will  probably  have  to  part, 
especially  if  more  courtesy  is  not  observed,  than  has 
sometimes  been  exhibited. 

Moderator.  The  Chair  has  observed  no  symptom 
of  brow-beating. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  I  do  not  speak  of  you.  I 
could,  if  it  were  proper,  pay  a  just  compliment  to  the 
mode  in  which  you  have  presided  over  this  body,  but 
1  am  fully  aware  that  both  in  the  hou^e  and  out  of  it 
my  course  has  been  blamed  in  no  very  measured 
terms  by  some  of  those  with  wliom  I  have  hitherto 
acted;  while  it  is  no  less  censured  and  opposed  by 
brethren  on  the  other  side.  We  were  never  in  such 
a  position  since  we  first  entered  on  this  dark  and  me- 
lancholy aflair.  I  merely  threw  in  an  amendment  to 
the  report  in  order  to  present  to  the  Synod  an  alter- 
native between  two  cour.ses.  I  can  see  nothing  un- 
candid  or  disorderly  in  such  a  step. 

Moderator.  The  motion  is  to  take  up  the  report 
by  paragraphs.  The  Chair  hopes  that  no  evil  will 
be  anticipated,  or  at  least  that  no  such  anticipations 
will  be  expressed.  He  pledges  himself  to  exert  hi.? 
authority  to  prevent  any  interruption  to  brethren 
speaTting,  although  it  may  not  be  in  his  power  lo  pre- 
vent every  outward  sign  of  impatience. 

Mr.  Robert  Breckinridge.  When  I  said  that  I 
was  willing,  if  an  orderly  course  was  pursued,  that 
the  brethren  should  have  a  full  hearing,  I  did  not  in- 
tend to  be  understood  that  I  was  wiUing  to  sit  here 
for  a  week  listening  to  speeches,  which  those  that 
made  them  could  not  themselves  expect  would  pro- 
duce the  least  alteration  whatever  in  the  result. 

Moderator.  Whatever  is  orderly  shall  be  permit- 
ted and  sustained. 

Mr.  Winchester  now  withdrew  his  motion,  de- 
claring a  reference  to  be  out  of  order,  and  the  ques- 
tion then  recurring  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  a 
minute  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes, 

Mr.  Winchester  called  for  a  division  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

Moderator.  Shall  the  papier  be  taken  up  by  para- 
graphs? 

Dr.  CoYLER.     I  move  that  Synod  now  consider 


252  TRIAL    OF 

the  resolutions  proposed  at  the  close  of  the  report, 
and  that  those  resolutions  be  taken  up  in  order. 

This  motion  was  agreed  to.  and  the  question  then 
coming  up  on  the  hrst  resolution  proposed  by  the 
committee,  it  was  read  as  Ibllows  :    [See  it  above.] 

Mr.  McKnight.  A  question  has  presented  itselt  to 
my  mind  whetlier  there  is  not  a  stej)  that  should  be 
taken  before  we  vote  on  this  report.  In  all  crin:inal 
courts,  when  tne  court  has  heard  the  evidence  and 
the  jury  has  brou.^ht  in  a  verdict  of  guilty,  the  ques- 
tion is  put  to  the  criminal,  "  Have  you  any  reason  to 
show  why  sentence  of  the  law  should  not  now  be  pro- 
nounced against  you?"  This  report  proposes  a  sen- 
tence, and  it  appears  proper  that  that  question  should 
first  be  put  to  Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  That  will  be  proper  after 
we  have  decided  upon  the  sentence. 

Mr.  M'Knight.  1  presume  that  this  is  the  proper 
time. 

Moderator.  This  is  not  the  proper  stajre  of  the 
proceeding  for  such  a  question,  riie  present  motion 
does  not  ^o  to  the  adoption  of  any  sentence. 

Mr.  M'Kmght.  If  you  adopt  the  last  resolution, 
do  you  not  pass  judfrmeni?  Do  you  not,  ipso  facto, 
declare  that  Mr.  Barnes  is  suspended  Irora  the  exer- 
cise of  liis  ministry  from  the  moment  that  resolution 
is  adopted  ? 

Moderator.    Yes. 

Mr.  M'Knight.  Then  I  move  to  suspend  the  far- 
ther consideration  of  the  report  in  order  that  the 
question  may  be  proposed  to  Mr.  Barnes  whether  he 
has  any  cause  to  show  why  judgment  should  not  be 
pronounced  against  him. 

Dr.  M'DowELL.    I  second  that  motion.  ♦ 

Moderator.  The  motion  is  not  in  order  at  this 
time.  It  will  be  when  the  question  shall  come  up  on 
the  second  resolution.  The  present  resolution  is 
substantially  nothing  more  than  what  was  decided 
yesterday. 

Mr.  M'Knight.  Is  it  not^in  order  to  move  to  sus- 
pend the  consideration  of  a  resolution  on  a  debate 
with  a  view  to  take  up  another  ? 

Moderator.  It  is  generally  in  order,  but  in  this 
stage  of  the  proceedings  the  motion  will  not  be  in 
order. 

Dr.  M'Dowell.  I  am  deeply  grieved  that  no  op- 
portunity is  ever  given  for  a  word  to  be  spoken  by 
those  who  are  in  favor  Mr.  Barnes. 

Moderator.  Dr.  M'Dowell  has  made  an  improper 
remark,  and  one  which  amounts  to  an  impeachment 
of  the  integrity  of  the  Moderator. 

Dr.  Neill.  Mr.  McKnight  and  Dr.  McDowell  do 
not  see  this  matter  as  I  do.  The  course  the  Synod 
s  now  pursuing,  will  give  to  every  member  the  full- 


MR.    BARNES.  253 

est  oi)portunity  he  can  desire  of  expressing  his  views. 
It  is  understood  and  generally  agreed,  that  when  we 
arrive  at  tlic  tliird  rcsohition,  the  opportunity  desired 
for  Mr.  Barnes  by  Mr.  McKni^ht  will  be  fully  ac- 
corded to  him.  This  is  the  understanding  all  over 
the  house. 

The  first  resolution  proposed  by  the  committee 
was  now  read  again,  ami  the  question  being  put,  the 
resolution  was  agreed  to. 

The  second  resolution  was  then  read.  [See  it 
above.] 

Dr.  Cathcart.  I  do  not  believe  that.  It  is  said 
that  all  the  charges  have  been  sustained.  I  believe 
that  many  have  been  sustained  ;  but  one  of  the 
grounds  expressly  taken  against  sustaining  the  ap- 
peal was,  that  a  portion  of  the  charges  had  not  been 
sustained  ;  and  one  brother  asked  whether  the  vote 
to  sustain  was  to  be  understood  as  implying  a  con- 
viction that  all  the  charges  had  been  proved  ;  but 
when  he  went  on  and  attempted  to  explain  how  far 
he  considered  thcni  as  proved,  it  happened  as  it  has 
in  all  other  ^ases  in  this  afiiiir.  We  were  put  down. 
[Cries  of  order.]  1  speak  history.  I  don't  think  that 
this  resolution  can  constitutionally  be  acted  upon,  tor 
in  all  criminal  cases  it  is  proper  and  requisite  where 
there  are  distinct  charges,  that  the  charges  be  taken 
up  in  detail  and  a  vote  given  on  each.  Some  of  the 
charges  I  presume  we  should  all  sustain.  I  would 
sustain  some  of  them  myself,  but  the  chair  told  us 
that  we  must  vote  to  sustain  or  not  sustain  the 
whole  ;  we  must  swallow  all  or  nothing.  Now  I  can- 
noi  adopt  this  resolution  unless  the  word  whole  be 
stricken  out.  When  you  say  that  the  proof  sustains 
the  charges,  the  sense  is  that  it  sustains  all  the 
charges,  and  I  don't  believe  that  it  does. 

Mr.  MusGRAVE.  I  move  to  strike  out  the  word 
"  fundamental"  before  "errors,"  and  substitute  the 
words  "'  great  and  dangerous."  My  reason  for  the 
motion  is  a  desire  that  we  may,  as  far  as  possible, 
move  together.  It  is  important  in  my  view  that 
whatever  we  decide  upon  should  pass  by  as  large  a 
majority  as  practicable.  I  do  conscientiously  believe 
that  many  of  the  errors  in  Mr.  Barnes'  book  are 
great  and  dangerous,  and  I  am  prepared  to  say  so. 
My  motion  arises  from  no  fickleness  on  my  part,  I 
examined  the  book  before  I  came  from  home,  and 
while  I  believe  that  it  does  contain  great  and  danger- 
ous errors  in  doctrine,  I  am  not  ready  to  pronounce 
them  fundamental,  although  I  apprehend  that  some 
of  the  opinions  he  holds  would  naturally  lead  to  er- 
rors that  are  fundamental.  But  the  assembly  has 
declared  that  we  are  not  to  convict  a  man  of  heresy 
on  mere  inferences  of  our  own.  Now,  if  you  leave 
the  word  fundamental  in  the  resolution  vou  will  com- 


254  TRIAL    OF 

pel  some  of  us  to  vote  against  it.  I  am  perfectly 
Irank  in  the  matter,  and  ready  williout  disguise  to 
give  my  reasons  in  full.  I  do  not  consider  tluit  in  the 
present  state  of  the  case  the  sentence  proposed  is 
just.  If  I  did  believe  his  errors  to  be  fundamental 
I  should  say  without  hesitation,  "Let  him  be  sus- 
pended." 1  would  not,  in  that  case  allow  hirn  to 
preach  for  a  sinjrle  day.  I  wish  to  be  consistent  in 
ray  course,  and  according  to  my  judgment  in  the  case, 
I  think  I  am.  All  who  are  opposed  to  the  sentence  of 
suspension  must,  if  consistent,  wish  the  word  "fun- 
damental" expunged.  If  you  diminish  your  majority 
and  increase  your  minority  the  moral  efl'ect  of  your 
sentence  will,  of  course,  be  so  lar  impaired,  and  by 
retaining  this  word  you  will  throw  into  the  minority 
men  whose  soundness  in  the  faith  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned, and  if  these  men  are  compelled  to  leave  you, 
just  so  far  as  they  have  influence  they  will  prejudice 
your  cause. 

Dr.  M'DowELL.  I  agree  in  sentiment  with  the 
brother  who  has  just  taken  his  seat.  If  I  could  bt'" 
lieve  that  all  the  charges  against  Mr.  Barnes  had 
been  substantiated,  and  that  ihe  accused  had  had  a 
fair  opportunity  for  trial,  I  might  agree  to  the  reso- 
lution. 1  do  believe  that  he  holds  errors  which  are 
great  and  dangerous.  But  while  I  admit  that  some 
of  his  sentiments,  if  carried  out  to  their  legitimate 
consequences,  would  lead  lo  fundamental  error,  yet 
I  cannot  say  that  he  does  hold  errors  which  are 
fundamental.  I  have  long  been  acquainted  with  Mr. 
Barnes.  I  have  acted  with  him  in  Presbytery  ever 
since  he  was  ordained.  I  have  been  with  him  con- 
stantly and  have  met  him  repeatedly  in  social  meet- 
ings, and  I  assert  it  as  my  belief  that  he  holds  as  fully 
as  any  man  in  this  house  the  doctrine  of  the  entire 
depravity  of  human  nature. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  call  Dr.  M'Dowell  to  or- 
der. We  are  not  now  called  to  say  what  Mr.  Barnes 
is,  but  whether  the  charges  against  him  have  been 
sustained. 

Mr.  MusGRAVE.  Was  it  not  said  that  while  a  man 
might  not  be  able  to  say  Mr.  Barnes  held  heretical 
opinions,  yet  if  he  believed  that  his  opinions  weru 
contrary  to  the  confession  of  faith,  he  might  intelli- 
gently vote  to  sustain  the  appeal  ?  And  are  we  now 
to  be  caught  in  this  way,  and  lo  be  told  because  we 
voted  to  sustain  that  therefore  we  must  say  he  is 
gulty  of  heresy  ? 

Moderator.  The  chair  thinks  Dr.  M'Dowell  is  in 
order,  though  it  will  not  be  in  order  now  to  enter  fully 
into  the  merits  of  Mr.  Barnes'  opinions. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  Will  Dr.  M'Dowell,  as  a 
favor,  allow  m«  to  proceed  a  moment? 

Dr.  M'Dowell.    Certainly. 


Mi:,   barm: 3.  2oo 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  If  the  word  cliar^es  were 
stricken  out  and  the  word  appeal  put  in,  the  dilTiculty 
of  some  brethren  would  be  removed ;  it  is  the  ap))eal 
only  that  is  to  be  sustained.  I  understand  the  first 
resolution  relates  exclusively  to  the  appeal  and  to 
the  sustaining  of  the  appeal.  The  second  resolution 
has  reference  only  to  the  alleged  errors  and  not  to 
the  errors  proven,  and  certainly  the  alleged  errors 
are  fundamental. 

Dr.  M'DowELL.  I  can  vote  with  a  good  conscience 
that  Mr.  Barnes  is  guilty  of  holding  great  and  dan- 
gerous errors,  but  not  that  he  holds  fundamcnial  er- 
rors. I  believe  that  he  holds  to  the  doctrine  ol'  total 
depravity  as  fully  and  as  firmly  as  any  man  in  this 
house,  and  that  he  believes  this  depravity  to  be  de- 
rived from  our  connection  with  Adam.  I  believe  that 
he  holds  that  there  is  no  salvation  for  a  smner  but 
through  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  he  is  saved  solely  on 
he  ground  ot  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  that  he  be- 
tomes  interested  in  these  merits  exclusively  by  laith. 
And  I  believe  farther  that  he  holds  to  the  absolute 
necessity  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  con- 
vert and  sanctify  the  soul.  I  have  long  known  that 
he  dilfered  from  me  in  his  mode  of  explaining  some 
of  these  points,  but  I  am  satisfied  that  on  the  great 
fundamental  doctrines  of  our  religion  he  preaches  in 
this  way.  I  stand  before  the  public  in  the  expression 
of  this  opinion,  and  I  shall  act  accordingly. 

Mr.  MusGRAVE.  I  am  satisfied  with  the  explana- 
tions given  by  the  brother  over  the  way,  (Mr.  R. 
Breckinridge,)  and  I  withdraw  my  motion  for  stri- 
king out. 

The  question  was  now  put  on  the  second  resolu- 
tion, and  it  was  agreed  to. 

The  third  resolution  was  thereupon  read.  [See  it 
above.] 

Moderator.  The  proposition  of  Dr.  Breckenridge 
will  now  come  in  by  precedence. 

Dr.  Laurie.  I  do  not  entirely  concur  in  that  reso- 
lution, although,  as  chairman  of  the  committee,  I  re- 
ported it.  I  have  some  doubts  as  to  the  power  of  the 
synod  to  decide  definitively  in  the  matter.  I  have  not 
been  able  to  recollect  any  precedent  lor  it.  My  opi- 
nion is  that  the  case  should  be  sent  down  to  Presby- 
tery with  instructions  that  should  Mr.  Barnes  refuse 
to  recant  his  errors,  he  be  by  ihera  suspended. 

Dr.  CuYLER.  My  opinion  differs  in  this  respect.  I 
believE  that  the  clause  of  our  constitution  which 
gives  to  a  synod  the  right  to  issue  appeals,  gives  it 
power  to  carry  out  its  own  decision  to  the  final  re- 
sult. The  appeal  is  not  in  fact  issued  until  the  sen- 
tence is  pronounced. 

Moderator.  The  motion  was  for  the  adoption  of 
the  third  resolution.    Dr.  Breckenridge  has  moved  a 


256  TRIAL    OF 

siibslitute,  and  lie  is  entitled  to  the  floor  in  enpport 
of  it.  and  the  question  will  then  be  on  the  adoption  of 
that  substitute. 

R.  Breckinridge.  The  ground  of  compromise  was 
that  ins  motion  eliouid  be  on  striking  out  the  third 
resolution. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  So  I  understood  it,  and  on 
that  motion  the  constitutionality  of  the  reference  of 
the  whole  case  to  the  Assembly  may  be  debated. 

Moderator.    Yes. 

The  substitute  proposed  by  Dr.  Breckinridge,was 
now  read. 

Moderator.  The  question  is  on  striking  out  the 
third  resolution  proposed  by  the  committee,  and  sub 
stituting  therefor  what  has  now  been  read. 

Mr.  Winchester.  I  move  that  the  reference  be 
declared  not  in  order. 

Moderator.  That  motion  is  unnecessary,  being 
virtually  involved  in  the  other. 

Dr.  Neill.  I  am  in  lavor  of  the  substitute.  I  know 
that  there  is  a  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  some  of  the 
brethren  arising  from  the  words  ol  our  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, which  declare  that  a  reference  can  only  take 
place  when  a  case  has  "  not  yet  been  decided:"  but 
with  me  this  is  no  difficulty  at  all,  because  1  consider 
this  as  a  case  not  yet  decided.  The  appeal,  indeed, 
has  been  sustained:  but  is  the  case  tiierefore  deci- 
(led  ?  You  have  reversed  the  sentence  of  the  Pres- 
bytery :  but  where  does  Mr.  Barnes  now  stand?  You 
lind  and  declare  that  his  book  contain?  dangerous  er- 
rors: it  is  of  course  your  duty  to  say  what  censure 
he  shall  receive:  this  you  have  not  done.  That 
would  decide  the  case:  but  until  that  is  done  the  case 
is  not  decided.  If  we  are  asked,  What  sentence 
have  you  passed  on  a  man  who  holds  and  promul- 
jrates  such  dangerous  errors  ?  we  must  answer,  none. 
But,  in  the  second  place,  this  is  precisely  the  time 
when  the  reference  should  take  place,  if  at  all.  You 
have  said  his  book  contains  errors  but  have  not  yet 
assigned  his  punishment ;  and  you  know  that  the 
case  kvill,  in  any  event,  certainly  go  to  the  assembly 
at  last:  you  will  then  lose  nothing  by  referring  it. 
3.  Your  book  provides  that,  "  in  cases  of  reference, 
the  members  of  the  inferior  judicatory  making  it  re- 
tain all  the  privileges  ol  deliberatmg  and  voting,  in 
the  course  of  trial  and  judgment  before  the  superior 
judicatory,  which  they  would  have  had  if  no  refer- 
ence had  been  made."  All  your  delegates  will  have 
the  same  right  to  vote  in  the  assembly  as  other  mem- 
bers on  the  floor,  because  it  is  a  reference  and  not 
an  appeal.  But  if  an  appeal  be  made,  you  are  then 
deprived  of  a  vote.  Such  is  my  understanding  of  tht"! 
matter.  4.  It  appears  to  me  that  by  giving  the  cast 
this  direction  you  will  avoid  all  appearance  of  evil ; 


«R.    BARNES.  5257 

you  will  avoid  the  chfirp:e  of  precipitancy.  The  pub- 
iic,  remember,  will  not  understand  our  technical 
difficultiefi.  Tney  will  look  only  at  the  s^eneral  facte. 
These  dilTiculties  may  have  been  improperly  thrown 
in  our  way  :  I  am  not  called  todecide  that  point :  but 
ifyou  stop  and  refer,  it  is  my  impression  that  you  will 
have  the  christian  tniblic  in  your  support.  For  thifi 
reason  I  am  most  smcerely  and  carneslly  in  favor  of 
the  substitute.  I  view  it  as  the  safe,  the  rig-hteoup, 
and  the  christian  course:  and  if  we  adopt  it  I  think 
that  we  shall  feel  that  we  have  done  to  another 
what,  in  like  circumstances,  we  should  wish  to  have 
been  done  to  ourselves. 

Mr.  W.  Latta.  I  think  it  is  hi^h  time  that  this  Sy- 
noi.1  should  take  a  firm  position.  This  vexatious  con- 
troversy has  agitated  us  long  enough.  It  is  now  five 
or  six  years  since  it  has  been  upon  us  like  an  incubus, 
producing  a  complete  paralysis  of  all  good  within  our 
bounds.  To  me  it  does  seem  strange,  after  all  the 
lessons  of  our  past  experience,  to  find  still  lingering 
in  the  midst  of  us  such  a  spirit  of  procrastination  and 
compromise.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  very  root  of  the 
evil;  but  for  this  spirit,  all  that  has  so  long  agitated 
us  and  destroyed  our  peace,  would  have  been  avoid- 
ed. I  am  not  at  all  surprised  at  the  sympathy  mani- 
fested by  some  tor  the  accused.  They  no  doubt  have 
a  near  sympathy  not  only  with  the  man,  but  with  his 
errors.  If  I  believe  Mr.  Barnes  to  hold  such  errors 
as  are  charged  upon  him,  I  ought  to  be  ready  to  unite 
in  his  condemnation.  Surely  a  man  must  be  more 
than  blind  if  the  present  trial  does  not  convince  him 
that  he  does  hold  them.  But  while  I  am  not  at  aU 
surprised  at  the  course  of  some  among  us,  I  am  not 
only  surprised,  but  perfectly  amazed  at  the  course 
pursued  by  others  of  my  brethren, — brethren  who 
profess  to  believe  the  truth  of  the  charges,  yet  have 
not  the  firmness  to  act  out  their  belief, — brethren 
who  acknowledge  that  there  is  a  gangrene  in  the 
body,  yet  would  rather  allow  it  to  spread  its  roots  in 
every  direction,  than  take  the  scalpelle  and  cut  it  out. 
They  confess  that  Mr.  Barnes  holds  errors  funda- 
mentally dangerous,  and  calculated  to  destroy  the 
souls  of*^  men;  yet  while  his  book  is  daily  spreading, 
and  souls  are  in  consequence  exposed  to  all  the  mise- 
ries of  the  second  death,  they  have  no  sympathy  but 
for  the  man  who,  with  his  own  hands,  has  mingled 
for  them  the  deadly  potion.  It  is  acknowledged  that 
Christ  has  been  deeply  wounded  in  his  members,  yet 
they  will  not  allow  us  to  put  forth  our  hand  and  bind 
up  his  bleeding  wounds.  In  vain  his  voice  ciiesin 
our  ears:  "O  all  ye  that  pass  by,  was  ever  sorrow 
like  unto  my  sorrow  1"  All  their  sympathy  is  reserv- 
ed for  the  very  man  who  inflicted  his  wounds,  and 
Btill  perseveres  in  inflicting  new.  I  would  earnestly 
22 


258  TRIAL  or 

beseech  such  brethren  to  beware  lest  the/  wonn<l 
Chriut  in  the  house  of  his  friends.  1  would  say  to 
them,  beware  how  you  produce  division  in  our  ranka 
at  such  a  crisis.  The  crisis  is  momentous  ;  the  world 
is  lookinff  upon  us,  ihe  church  is  looking  upon  us, 
angels  are  looking  upon  us.  Could  all  the  church  of 
God  in  this  lana  be  here  present,  and  behold  such  a 
phalanx  as  was  here  exhibited,  one  hundred  and  for- 
ty-three devoted  men  baring  their  breasts  to  ail  the 
shafts  which  earth  and  hell  can  direct  against  them; 
while  on  the  other  hand  stand  thirty-two  men,  I  will 
not  say  cowering  behind  their  shields,  the  sight  would 
operate  with  such  a  power  as  none  could  resist. 
Poor,  weeping,  drooping  Zion,  would  anon  lift  up  her 
head;  gladly  would  she  cast  oti'  her  sackcloth,  and 
speedily  should  we  behold  her  looking  forth  "fair  ae 
the  m-oon,  clear  as  the  sun,  and  to  all  the  enemies  of 
truth,  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  I  assure  my  brethren  that  in 
addition  to  the  intense  solemnity  inseparable  Irom  an 
occasion  like  this,  I  feel  at  this  moment  agitated  by 
feelings  of  a  peculiar  nature.  I  shall  need  your  pa- 
tience, your  kindness,  and  I  may  need  your  pardon, 
on  account  of  the  peculiar  position  into  which  1  am 
thrown  by  the  very  serious  implications  contained  in 
the  remarks  of  the  father  who  has  just  taken  his 
seat.  I  am  sensible  that  the  position  in  which  1  stand 
must  be  a  very  unenviable  one,  before  the  minds  of 
brethren  who  thipk  and  feel  as  that  father  does.  The 
measure  I  have  ventured  to  propose  has  been  repre- 
sented (and  this  must  be  my  apology  for  speaking 
with  so  much  honest  warmtn>  as  an  entering  wedge, 
calculated  and  intended  to  spat  the  ranks  of  the  ma- 
jority in  this  body.  Brethren  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
lay  their  hands  upon  me  and  to  say,  you  are  dividing 
the  orthodox  party  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  by 
offering  that  resolution.  It  is  a  serious  charge,  and 
if  in  remarking  upon  it,  I  should  inadvertently  trench 
upon  the  strict  rules  of  order,  you  will,  I  am  sure,  con- 
cide  something  to  the  weakness  of  man.  Indeed,  I 
had  ratlier,  in  view  of  any  little  influence  I  may  exert, 
be  out  of  the  Synod  :  nay,  I  had  rather  be  out  of  the 
church,  and  out  of  the  world,  (for  it  is  not  very  im- 
portant that  I  should  live)  than  be  justly  liable  to  such 
an  accusation.  Yet,  when  "  such  an  one  as  Paul  the 
aged'  speaks,  I  '  rise  up  before  the  hoarr  head.'  But 
while  an  accusation  of  this  kind  is  preferred  on  the 
one  side,  were  I  not  known  here  as  well  as  I  am,  you 
would  hear,  and  in  tones  loud  enough,  on  the  other 
fiide  the  appeal  against  my  violence  in  behalf  of  or- 
thodoxy. That  cry  has  often  enough  been  raised 
against  me,  yet  here  I  stand  accused  of  splitting  the 
ranks  of  the  orthodox,  and  of  throwing  myself  as  an 
JQterposing  obstacle  between  that  body  of  men,  and 


MR.    BARN£S.  259 

that  last  act  which  would  seal  the  safety  of  the 
church.  Here  then  is  the  crifiis  oi'  our  proceeding  ; 
here  is  the  last  point  at  which  those  who  would  resist 
the  course  which  has  hcen  resolved  upon  by  some, 
must  rally  and  make  a  stand — for  I  lully  expect  that 
after  this  meeting,  you  will  no  more  be  allowed  to 
speak  freely.  For  the  lasi  ten  or  fifteen  years,  indeed 
ever  since  I  have  been  r  member  oi  this  body,  I  have 
taken  my  stand  just  wl  t  •,  I  now  do.  I  shall  act  now 
as  I  ever  endeavored  to  ;ict,  yet  I  do  not  expect  to  do 
HO  without  many  reproaches  on  all  sides.  The  posi- 
tion ol  the  Presbyterian  church  within  the  last  fifteen 
years,  aud  more  especially  during  the  last  five  ef 
these,  has  been  peculiar  in  many  respects.  She  has 
had  amon^  her  divines  two  dill'erent  classes  of  men, 
both  claiming:  to  be  esteemed  the  Orthodox.  One  of 
these  has  been  located  at  Prmceton,  the  other  at  Phi- 
ladelphia, and  the  result  has  been  that  in  consequence 
ofthiswantof  harmony  between  her  leading  mem- 
bers, a  very  small  minoriiy  has  in  effect  ruled  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  The  spectacle  has  been  a  cu- 
rious one  ;  for  while  one  of  these  two  Orthodox  par- 
ties has  ever  held  up  the  writings  of  the  other  as  cor-" 
rect  standards  in  point  of  principle,  they  have  contin- 
ually acted  against  each  other  on  this  floor.  At  the 
last  Assembly  these  two  parties  united  in  one.  If 
that  union  can  be  continued  we  may  yet  see  good 
•days:  but  if  thosje  who  are  or>e  in  prirtcipie  shall  con- 
tinue as  heretofore  to  differ  from,  and  to  oppose  each 
other  in  action,  it  must  sever  the  Presbyterian  church 
for  this  age.  It  is  on  the  platform  of  the  operations 
ot  the  last  Assembly  that  I  am  willing  to  stand  or 
fall.  There  are  those  of  my  brethren  who  I  hold  to 
be  as  orthodox  ae  any,  but  whose  course  of  policy  is 
in  my  judgment  calculated  to  throw  the  two  great 
bodies  of  the  Orthodox  asunder ;  and  by  selling 
against  each  other  as  antagonist  muscles  those 
which  ought  to  be  united  in  one  and  the  same  arm,  to 
bring  in  a  minority  of  less  than  one  third  to  rule  the 
whole.  If  I  wanted  a  triumph  for  Mr.  Barnes,  I 
would  mount  the  storm  and  seek  to  raise  it  into  a 
whirlwind.  An  ill-omened  prophet  has  told  us  that 
if  Mr.  Barnes  falls,  the  Presbyterian  church  will  fall 
next,  and  he  may  alas  be  found  to  be  a  prophet  in 
evil,  but  too  true.  I  believe  for  one  that  i(  we  at  a 
crisis  like  the  present  go  on  t<9  consummate  the  act 
proposed,  we  shall,  I  will  not  say  fulfil  the  very  wish- 
es of  that  prophet's  heart,  but  we  shall  too  surely 
fulfil  his  prediction-  If  Mr.  Barnes  shall  be  deposed 
or  suspended  in  the  present  stage  of  this  trial,  and  the 
case  in  that  form,  shall  come  before  the  General  As- 
sembly, depend  upon  it  you  will  have  entered  the 
wedge  which  is  to  divide  your  church.  I  ask  you  to 
t'Aoiocide  something  to  our  weakness,  and  in  so  saying:, 


260  TRIAL  or 

1  identify  myself  with  a  larjre  class  of  men  who  are 
said  in  point  of  policy  to  be  "upon  the  fence,"  but 
who  are  lar  from  lx?ing-  so  in  principle.  You  must  be 
satisfied  that  to  some  extent  we  do  not  go  with  you, 
yet  let  me  be  understood.  I  do  not  say  to  you.  do> 
wrono^  for  peace  sake ;  \hr  from  ii^^and  certainly  i 
may  be  permitted  to  say,  that  i!  the  course  of  so  hum- 
ble an  individual  as  myaelf  can  prove  him  to  be  tear- 
less of  consequences  in  the  path  of  duty,  neither 
Rome  witli  her  priesthood,  nor  unitarianism  with  her 
ranks  of  smooth  philosophers  can  tesiily  aught 
against  me.  But  I  have  been  slow  to  contest  points 
with  my  own  brethren,  while  ihe  church  is  surround- 
ed and  assailed  on  every  side  by  enemies  without. 
Yet  v/hile  I  do  not  ask  you  to  do  wrong  that  good 
may  come,  I  do  ask  that^  there  should  be  in  this 
body  as  in  our  last  Assembly,  a  combination  of  all 
sound  Presbyterians.  And  if  in  this  measure  you 
cannot  carry  those  with  you  who  should  be  carried 
with  you  in  so  important  a  movement,  ought  you  not 
at  least  to  be  willing  to  pause  and  to  await  the  last 
rebound  ol  the  subject'/  You  have  gained  much. 
Now  take  advantage  of  the  public  sentiment,  and 
wait  for  the  rest.  It  will  meet  you  before  the  next 
Assembly.  That  body,  if  I  mistake  not,  will  have  the 
same  character  as  the  last,  only  that  the  tint  will 
probably  be  a  shade  stronger.  But  my  reasoning  is 
not  to  pov/er,  it  is  to  the  subject,  and  to  the  destinies 
of  the  church.  For  myself  I  doubt  the  ri»ht  of  this 
Synod  to  suspend  Mr.  Barnes;  but  admitting  the 
Synod  to  possess  such  a  right,  I  ask,  is  it  wise  to  ex- 
ercise it  ?  Is  it  best  on  the  whole  ?  Is  it  not  hazard- 
ing too  much,  to  risk  a  division  of  the  great  Presby- 
terian party,  and  possibly  to  give  a  triumph  to  a  mi- 
nority? Has  not  experience  proved  that  you  give 
error  its  death,  by  giving  it  rope  to  run?  You  will 
have  to  meet  tlie  question  as  before  the  last  assem- 
bly, but  with  this  great  disadvantage,  that  you  will 
then  meet  it  with  all  the  evils  of  a  relapse.  For  one, 
1  believe  upon  the  whole,  I  should  prefer,  if  the  Pres--^ 
by terian  church  cannot  cohere  on  the  principles  of 
the  last  assembly,  that  it  should  be  dissolved,  and 
this  without  the  slightest  personality.  I  do  say 
that  if  Taylorism  cannot  be  put  down,  (a  party  who, 
from  less  than  a  third  of  the  whole,  have  now  tri- 
umphed for  years  because  Christian  brothers  cannot 
unite  with  each  other  in  action;)  I  for  one  wish  to 
see  this  church  dissolved;  I  repeat  the  declaration,  I 
speak  it  to  the  whole  church,  I  publish  it  to  all  man- 
kind, that  if  Taylorism  cannot  be  put  down  in  the 
Presbyterian  church,  my  wish  is,  that  the  church 
should  be  dissolved.  I  should  prel'er  even  that  alter- 
native to  having  a  meaj^re  minority  any  longer  keep- 
ing us  at  perpetual  variance.    No  man,  I  Itnow  caii 


MR.    BARNES.  261 

interpret  away  the  meaning  of  Mr.  Barnes's  book,  bo 
as  to  show  that  he  does  not  hold  deep  and  dangeroua 
errors.  Yet  I  desire  to  roll  the  cat-e  jupt  as  it  stands 
upon  the  hands  of  the  General  AsKembly,  because  I 
beheve  sui'h  a  course,  while  it  is  clearly  the  most 
politic,  to  be  at  same  time  the  most  honorable,  the 
most  delicate,  and  altogether  the  most  cdristian 
course.  But  it  is  not  for  me  to  censure  your  counsels. 
They  have  arisen  in  part  from  the  position  into  which 
the  contumacy  of  the  Presbytery,  and  1  must  add  of 
the  Appellee,  has  thrown  the  Synod.  In  re^^rard  to 
Mr.  Barnes  himsell,  I  would  fondly  hope,  that  al- 
though he  holds  great  and  serious  errors,  and  such 
as  aro  almost  fundamental  in  their  character,  he  has 
enough  of  personal  piety  to  keep  his  heart  right, 
althoiiirh  hie  principles  are  grossly  wrong.  The 
The  errors  of  his  hook,  I  admit,  have  been  proved, 
but  this  ha.~  tieen  done  in  a  way  with  which  I  am  not 
fully  satisfied.  The  steps  required  by  our  constitu- 
tion have  not  in  my  opinion  been  taken.  The  accused 
party  has  not  been  here,  and  has  not  been  heard  in 
his  own  defence.  And  althoui;h  this  may  be  said  to 
be  his  own  lault,  yet  I  do  not  wish  it  to  go  out  to  the 
people  of  America,  that  we  have  condemned  any  in- 
dividual under  such  circumstances.  There  is  among 
the  people  of  this  land,  such  a  glowing  indignation 
against  vvhatever  touches  the  rights  of  man,  that 
they  will  not«itop  to  inquire  info  the  minute  circum- 
etances  of  the  case.  They  will  seize  on  trie  result, 
and  say  you  cast  off"  a  man  from  his  office,  who  had 
never  been  heard  in  his  defence.  It  will  be  in  vaia 
you  ofler  explanations  ;  the  cry  will  only  become  the 
deeper  and  the  louder.  No  matter  what  was  the 
cause  of  his  absence,  he  was  absent:  and  though  he 
were  dead,  and  his  book  lost  and  sunk  in  the  bottom 
ot  the  sea,  it  would  make  no  difference:  the  public 
voice  will  side  with  any  man,  in  any  circnmstances, 
who  was  condemned  unheard.  I  do  not  wish  to 
place  Mr.  Barnes  on  this  ground.  Whaiever  be  his 
demerits,  i  would  have  him  treated  with  patience, 
with  mercy,  with  even  gratuitous  generosity. 

And  now,  a^  to  the  question  ol  the  right  of  the 
Synod  to  punish  the  accused,  it  seems  to  me  that  all 
precedent  is  against  its  doin^  any  thing  directly, 
with  its  own  hand.  If  you  will  do  any  thing  in  the 
matter,  you  will  surely  take  care  to  have  a  prece- 
dent to  support  you.  But  there  is  no  precedent  to 
support  you.  Our  fathers  surely  understood  the  con- 
etitution  they  framed,  and  iheir  understanding  was 
that  in  a  case  like  this  the  lower  court  is  to  be  in- 
structed what  to  do.  That  is  my  view  of  the  matter. 
II  you  will  not  refer  the  case,  you  ought  to  send  it 
down  to  the  Presbytery,  with  or  without  definitive 
tnstructioDs,  and  ii'  censure  is  to  be  inflicted  let  it  be 
22» 


262  TRIAL   OF 

inflicted  by  them.  You  have  gained  importsnt 
ffrouiid:  Blop  there.  I  am  anxious  tl>e  Synod  should 
go  no  farther.  You  obtained,  by  the  weighty  sen- 
tence of  yesterday,  ail  the  inlluence  for  truth  which 
you  can  gain  if  you  advance ;  and  1  now  seek  that 
moral  influence  which  will  arise  Irom  mildness,  and 
mercy,  and  voluniary  delay.  I  would  have  you  pay 
devoulest  homage  even  to  ihe  shadow  of  justice. 

There  is  another  point  you  ought  to  look  at.  It 
has  been  said  that  Mr.  Barnes  has  no  right  to  ap- 
peal, inasmuch  as  he  has  refused  to  submit  to  a  trial. 
I  believe  this  position  ro  b« sound.  But  I  would  have 
the  Synod,  without  yielding  that  ground,  still  act 
with  a  heavenly-minded  magnanimity,  and  say  to  the 
man  at  its  bar,  '  Thougli  we  have  done  no  more  than 
our  duly,  and  though  you  by  your  refractory  course 
have  fjrfeited  the  right  of  appeal,  and  though  we 
might  now  proceed  to  jutlgn)ent,  yet  we  will  spare 
the  last  act,  that  we  may  give  you  that  which  you 
have  lost :  we  will  still  give  you  a  reference  though 
you  have  lost  your  appeal.  We  will  waive  the 
right  we  hold,  and  will  meet  you  belbre  the  great 
Sanhedrien  of  ihe  church,  and  there  let  the  case  be 
fully  heard.  By  such  a  course  you  will  lose  nothing. 
Then  if  there  is  any  error  it  will  lean  to  money's 
side,  it  will  savor  of  generosity,  and  never  can  injure 
you.  I  have  with  great  candor,  and  with  what  some 
have  considered  great  and  intemperate  violence,  ex- 
pressed my  unqualified  disapprobation  of  the  method 
adopted  by  the  Presbytery  and  by  Mr.  Barnes  to 
avoid  a  trial:  and  I  have  declared,  with  equal  fear- 
lessness, ray  attachment  to  the  great  principles  held 
by  the  Orthodox  party  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
1  have  acquitted  my  conscience.  I  will  no  longer 
stand  between  that  party  and  their  object,  or  what 
has  infamously  been  denominated  "their  prey."  It 
is  not  I  who  have  said,  that  every  hours  delay  is  paia 
and  torture  to  their  unglutred  vengeance.  For  my- 
aelf,  I  do  not  wonder  that  their  patience  and  longan- 
imity are  almost  worn  out.  I  know  well  that  the 
stand  they  have  taken  is  by  them  believed  before  God 
to  be  the  duty  they  owe  to  the  Savior's  bleeding 
wounds:  and  I  believe  farther  that  in  this  as  on  for- 
mer occasions,  it  is  the  Laity  who  by  their  firmness 
and  intelligence  will  save  the  church.  They  have 
done  it  beiore :  they  will  do  it  again.  I  could  deal 
easier  with  the  elders  than  with  the  preachers. 
Blackened  as  they  may  be  by  reproaches  it  is  they 
and  the  holy  mothers  in  Israel  (first  at  the  sepulchre 
last  at  the  cross  !)  that  arc  the  stall'  and  the  stay  of 
our  drooping  and  endangered  Leon.  But  I  leel  that 
I  stand  between  you  and  your  object.  Placed  be- 
tween men  alike  inexorable,  I  am  doomed  to  receive 


MR.    BARNES.  263 

Stripes  from  both  sides.  I  Udow  it  has  been  said  by 
one  side  tliat  I  am  "as  hot  as  pepper,"  for  Ortho 
doxy.  I  would  remind  the  authors  of  that  remark 
that  pepper  though  it  may  excite  burning  heat  in 
other  substances,  is  itseil  quite  cool.  But  while  I 
please  not  tliese  men,  I  am  as  little  acceptable  to  our 
ultra  brethren  on  the  Orthodox  side.  By  these  I  am 
denominated  "a  middle  man."  I  have  had  my  right 
foot  shaken  by  one  party,  and  my  lelt  foot  shaken  by 
the  oiher  party,  while  both  parties  cry  in  my  ear?, 
"  como  off  the  i'ence!"  But  I  rei)ly  to  both,  in  the 
words  ol  the  motio  ol'the  Education  Society,  a  motto 
adopted  to  declare  its  eternal  devotion  to  the  princi- 
ples of  Presbyteririnism  but  not  to  the  dojjmas  of 
either  party,  "  nec  dextrorsum,  nec  sinistrorsum." 
Tiiis  is  the  motto  wliich  laillduliy  followed  will  guide 
the  lair  and  goodly  vessel  ot  the  church  safe  between 
Scylla  and  Charybdis.  Good  brother  [he  was  under- 
stood to  refer  to  Mr.  Mc  Calia]  with  whom  I  cannot 
always  act,  though  I  can  and  always  shtill  love  him, 
knows  very  well  that  I  do  not  feai  difficulty.  He  re- 
members that  1  stood  by  him  when  our  very  lives  were 
threatened  for  months  together,  and  when  damna- 
tion was  openly  thundered  at  us  from  the  galleries 
of  his  own  church.  He  well  knows  it  is  not  from  (ear 
that  1  am  acting.  He  knows  the  lesson  that  was 
taught  us  on  our  mothers'  lap.  The  day  that  he  and 
I  begin  to  fear  anything  in  the  honest  discharge  of 
our  duty,  on  that  day  will  our  mothers  first  be 
ashamed  of  the  offspring  tliey  bore,  and  we  shall  both 
be  deservedly  expatriated  as  unworthy  to  be  called 
sons  of  Kentucky.  Let  me  not,  then,  be  charged 
with  flinching.  Some  say  I  fear  to  meet  the  results 
of  my  own  principles.  1  do  not  fear  them.  I  fear  lest 
an  injury  be  done  to  the  beloved  ship  in  which  my 
all  is  embarked.  I  do  fear  the  next  step  in  this  pro- 
ceeding, the  step  you  are  now  about  to  take.  Not 
because  I  fear  Mr.  Barnes,  or  Mr.  Barnes's  people. 
No  :  but  I  fear  to  take  Uzzah's  part :  I  do  fear  lest 
we  offend  Uzzah's  God.  iVlr.  Barnes  and  his  people, 
or  any  other  minister  or  church,  is  of  little  conse- 
quence in  comparison  with  the  triumph  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  in  comparison  with  the  victory  of 
truth  and  order.  And  on  your  next  step,  at  least  in 
my  judgment,  hangs  the  destiny  of  both.  For  we 
have  now  got  to  a  spot  whence  the  echo  of  our  deeds 
will  roll  like  blended  music  and  thunder  through  the 
land.  In  this  crisis  my  voice  shall  be  lifted  for  Peace. 
Bestow  something  on  our  weakness.  Concede  some- 
thing at  least  to  our  doubts.  They  are  honest.  They 
are  consciencious.  Let  us  trust  the  next  General 
Assembly.  If  that  body  shall  not  decide  that  there 
is  error  and  more  dangerous  error  in  this  book,  then 


264  TRIAL    OF 

ray  best  prayer  for  it  shall  be  "  May  it  never  never 
meet  again!"  Yes:  if  that  shall  be  its  decision  let 
it  be  dissolved  into  its  elements,  and  while  out  of 
its  scattered  fraojmenls  the  gold  and  silver  and  pre- 
cious stones  shall  be  jratheretl  into  one  heap,  let  the 
wood  and  hay  and  stubbit  be  f^iiihered  into  another. 
If  the  Assembly  shall  lake  your  ground,  we  shall  be 
safe:  but  if  not,  I  repeat  the  prayer  "May  it  never 
no  never,  meet  again  !" 

Mr.  R.  Kennedy.  I  have  not  yet  either  spoken  or 
voted  on  this  subject:  and  my  reasons  are  these.  I 
knew  before  we  began  that  there  would  be  more 
speakers  ihan  edification :  but  beside  this  1  was  ab- 
sent during  the  delivery  of  a  part  of  Dr.  Junkin's  ar- 
gument. But  in  our  present  circumstances  I  deem 
It  my  duty  to  give  my  opinion  with  great  frankness 
and  simplicity.  I  think  we  are  in  danger  of  doing 
something  very  wrong — sonieiliing  that  is  likely  to 
do  great  harm  .  and  I  feel  that  we  ought  to  examine 
carefully  the  ground  we  are  going  to  tread  upon  be- 
fore we  take  the  first  step.  All  men  judge  more  cor- 
rectly in  temporal  than  in  spiritual  matters.  Al- 
though I  pretend  to  know  nothing  of  law,  yet  it  seems 
to  me  a  case  in  which  we  may  all  form  without  diffi- 
culty a  correct  judgment.  Our  difficulties  result  from 
the  consequences  of  the  appeal.  In  civil  matters,  as 
we  all  know,  there  are  courts  of  appeal  to  which  the 
sentence  of  lower  courts  may  be  brought  lor  revision. 
In  one  of  these  lower  courts  a  man,  we  will  suppose, 
is  arraigned  under  an  indictment  for  theft,  and  after 
a  trial  before  a  jury  of  his  peers  he  is  unanimously 
acquitted.  But  suppose  that  in  consequence  of  some 
error  in  the  proceedings  the  case  is  brought  before  a 
higher  court  bv  appeal,  and  the  sentence  is  there  re- 
versed. What  is  the  efleci  of  such  reversal?  To 
convict  the  mafn  of  theft  ?  Would  this  infamous  crime 
be  fixed  upon  a  citizen  once  declared  innocent,  with- 
out a  new  hearing  before  his  peers  ?  Especially  if 
some  of  the  members  of  the  court  of  appeal  express- 
ed a  decided  conviction  that  he  was  guiltless  of  the 
crime?  and  others  doubted  the  grounds  of  the  ap- 
peal? Surely  not.  All  the  power  of  the  court  of  ap- 
peal would  only  extend  to  theremandingof  the  cause 
to  the  inferior  court  with  directions  to  correct  the 
record,  and  to  get  all  the  new  light  possible,  and  after 
a  new  decision  to  bring  it  up  again.  In  civil  matters 
there  is  always  a  leaning  to  the  side  of  the  accused, 
especially  in  cases  of  appeal.  Our  revolutionary 
fathers  who  fought  for  the  establishment  ef  our  liber- 
ties inserted  in  the  constitution  a  clause  declaring 
that  no  man's  life  or  limb  should  twice  be  put  in 
jeopardy  on  the  same  accusation.  If  an  appeal  must 
be  met,  it  must  at  least  be  so  conducted  as  not  to  put 
the  accused  twice  la  jeopardy.    So  the  efiect  of  an 


MR.    BARNES.  265 

appeal  is  only  to  set  the  case  referred  back  to  the 
lower  court.  This  principle  is  recognized  and  es- 
tablished in  matters  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil. 
Surely  there  ought  to  be  in  church  courts  at  least  as 
much  mercy  and  as  great  a  regard  to  the  rights  ot 
man  as  in  courts  ol  law.  It  appears  to  me  that  our 
whole  constitution,  on  the  subject  of  appeals,  pro- 
ceeds on  this  principle,  that  no  man  who  has  been 
tried  and  acquitted  ol'a  crime  can  by  appeal  have  his 
acquittal  so  reversed  thnt  ho  shall  be  pronounced 
guilty  wiihout  a  new  trial.  On  that  principle  I  think 
that  the  case  before  Synod  should  either  be  referred 
back  to  the  Presbytery  or  referred  onward  to  the 
General  Assembly.  In  the  1st  section  of  the  chapter 
on  appeals  it  is  said  "  An  appeal  is  the  removal  of  a 
cause  already  decided,  from  an  inferior  to  a  superior 
judicatory,  by  a  7>ar^7/  aggrieved."  In  all  criminal 
cases  there  is  but  one  party.  In  civil  cases  there 
are  two  or  more:  and  as  either  of  ihem  may  be  ag- 
grieved, either  has  the  right  to  appeal.  In  some 
cases  civil  and  criminal  matters  may  be  mixed,  and 
in  that  case  all  parties  ought  to  have  a  right  ol"  ap- 

Eeal.  But  in  a  case  purely  criminal,  there  is  and  can 
e  but  one  party  belore  the  court.  In  the  English 
courts  the  cause  runs  in  the  name  of  the  king — in 
this  country  in  the  name  of  the  commonwealth  or  the 
people — in  church  courts  in  the  name  ol  the  head  of 
the  church.  The  states  attorney  who  conducts  the 
cause  is  not  a  party  to  the  cause :  he  is  only  the 
channel  or  instrument  through  or  by  which  the  king 
is  supposed  to  act.  In  this  matter  Dr.  Junkin  was 
not  a  party,  and  should  not  have  been  treated  as 
such.  He  was  merely  the  prosecutor  in  behalf  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He  was  not  the  "  party  ag- 
grieved." He  was  no  more  aggrieved  than  any 
other  niinister  in  the  church.  Had  he  been  personal- 
ly censured  or  slandered,  then  he  would  have  been 
legitimately  a  party  in  the  case:  but  nothing  like 
ihis  is  pretended.  He  was  the  prosecutor,  but  he 
was  no  party.  I  repeat,  in  conclusion,  that  no  ac- 
cused party,  on  an  appeal,  can  be  condemned  for  a 
crime  ol  which  he  ivas  acquitted  in  the  court  below. 
The  appellant  court  has  no  power  to  condemn  him. 
The  present  case  can  either  be  referred  to  the  As- 
sembly, or  remanded  to  the  Presbytery  of  which,  in 
the  final  arrangement  of  the  Presbyteries,  Mr. 
Barnes  shall  be  a  member.  I  have  no  dojbl  a  Pres- 
bytery can  be  constituted  in  which  the  Synod  may 
place  implicit  confidence.  If  the  publication  of  Mr. 
Barnes'  book  shall  be  suspended  we  shall  have  ac- 
complished the  end  of  this  whole  proceeding,  viz. 
the  reformation  of  the  accused  :  but  if  he  proceeds 
etill  to  publish  errors,  without  any  correction  or  re- 
cantation, the  Presbytery  can  lay  their  hands  upon 


3t>G  TRIAL    OF 

him.  If  he  shall  essentially  change  his  sentiments, 
the  Presbytery  can  be  directed  to  receive  and  restore 
him. 
Mr.  Mc  Calla  obtained  the  fluor,  but  yielded  it  to 
Dr.  Green  who  said  he  wished  to  otfer  a  lew  re- 
marks cljiefly  ill  relereuce  to  what  had  liilien  from 
Dr.  Breckciirid;re.  And  1  freely  confess  tl  it  I  dread 
a  question  of  relerence  as  a  burnt  child  dreads  the 
fire.  This  very  case,  substantially,  has  once  betore 
been  referred  to  the  Assembly  ;  and  what  did  that 
body  do  with  it?  I  am  to  speak  respectfully  of  the 
highest  judicatory  of  the  church,  but  I  have  a  right 
to  say  that  as  to  alleviation  of  the  grievance  there 
was  none.  The  award  of  the  Assembly  was  a  per- 
fect nullity:  and  the  whole  history  of  tliis  business 
from  that  day  lo  this  has  been  a  history  of  corifusion, 
and  all  in  consequence  of  that  decree.  That  very 
act  has  been  Ibe  root  of  all  the  evils  in  our  Zion. 
Although  1  leel  confident  that  the  next  Assembly 
will  be  of  a  very  ditierent  complexion  from  tbat  which 
passed  this  decree,  still,  1  never  will  consent  to  a  re- 
ference in  a  matter  that  I  can  decide.  This  is  true 
Presbyterianism  :  to  do  all  our  duty,  and  then  to  let 
the  agerieved  party  go  up  by  api)eal  and  have  our 
act  revised.  But  we  are  getting  into  the  habit  of 
throwing  all  matters  of  any  moment  into  the  Assem- 
bly. Some  of  these  referreil  cases  have  veryipro- 
jjerly  been  remanded.  I  never  will  consent  to  a  re- 
ference until  the  inferior  court  f.as  done  its  business. 
It  has  been  said  that  our  church  is  divided  and  gov- 
erned by  a  minority.  But  let  it  be  remembered  that 
when  we  wished  to  go  forward  and  take  a  decided 
step  we  could  not  get  our  brethren  to  go  with  us. 
Princeton  opposed  us.  But,  without  their  support, 
and  against  their  judgment,  we  went  forward,  a  little 
Spartan  band,  and  you  liave  seen  the  result.  I  said 
to  the  Prmceton  gentlemen,  "  We  will  do  you  good 
against  your  will."  And  they  have  seen  it,  since.  I 
had  to  oppose  tnem:  1  did  oppose  them:  and  I  shall 
oppose  them  again.  Yes :  it  is  true,  that  a  third 
party  among  us  did  unite  with  them,  and  we  had  to 
oppose  both.  Now  they  rejoice  in  it :  I  know  they 
do  •.  and  I  hope  the  result  will  prove  tn  them  an  in- 
structive lesson.  It  has  been  said  that  Mr.  Barnes 
has  not  had  a  hearing.  And  suppose  he  should  not 
choose  ever  to  be  heard,  are  we  never  to  come  to  a 
decision?  Suppose  he  shall  refuse  to  speak  before 
the  Assembly,  are  the  Assembly  never  to  decide  7 
He  has  had  every  opportuniiy  to  speak,  and  if  he 
chooses  to  remain  silent,  he  must  take  his  own 
course.  It  is  said  there  are  no  precedents  for  a  cen- 
sure by  the  Synod;  and  that  the  esse  must  be  sent 
down  to  Prct^bytery.  I  hope  not.  The  Synod  has 
AJearly  a  right  to  issue  the  appeal :  and  they  ought 


MR.    BARNKB.  267 

lo  pefform  their  duty.  It  is  said  they  have  perform- 
ed it,  and  yet  the  whole  ground  is  to  be  gone  over 
again!  1  did  find  one  precedent.  A  man  by  the  name 
of  Cruikshanks  was  condemned  by  a  Synod,  and  hin 
case  was  carried  up  to  the  General  At^sembly;  ahci 
though  the  Assembly  did  remand  the  case,  yet  they 
did  not  condemn  the  Synod  lor  acting  on  it.  This 
case  will  be  found  in  the  minutes  of  the  Assembly  in 
1824  or  perhaps  1827.  Then  there  is  the  case  of  Mr. 
Craighead,  but  I  will  not  now  go  into  that.  On  the 
whole,  I  hold  it  our  duty  to  decide  the  case  which 
has  been  referred  to  us ;  and  not  to  reler  or  remand 
it. 

Mr.  Mc  Calla.  II  I  heard  aright  there  was  some 
reference  made  to  a  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Ken- 
tucky in  the  case  of  Mr.  Craighead.  I  should  be 
glad  if  those  who  deny  the  power  of  the  Synod  to 
suspend  a  minister  would  prove  it  from  that  case. 

Dr.  Blythe.  The  minutes  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly for  the  year  1824  will  shew  what  was  done  in 
Craighead's  affair. 

Mr.  R.  Breckenridge.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  ultimate  decision,  the  Assembly  did  ultimately 
restore  Mr.  Craighead  without  any  appeal  or  refer- 
ence.   He  was  a  distant  relative  of  mine. 

Dr.  Cathcart.  The  case  was  sent  down  to  the 
Presbytery  for  reconsideration  ;  but  before  anything 
farther  was  done  he  died. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  He  certainly  did  preach 
after  he  was  restored  ;  lor  1  heard  him  with  my  own 
ears,  after  Dr.  Cathcart  says  he  was  dead,  [much 
laughter.] 

[Dr.  Green  and  Dr.  Blythe  here  read  extracts  from 
the  minutes  of  the  Assembly  touching  Mr.  Craig- 
hada's  case.] 

Mr.  M'Calla»  Now  see  how  lo  reconcile  what 
Dr.  Blythe  says  was  done  by  the  Presbytery  with 
what  Dr.  Green  says  was  done  by  the  Synod.  Both 
are  ri^ht  in  saying  the  Presbytery  took  up  the  case 
and  tried  it,  and  referred  it  to  the  Synod.  Then  the 
Synod  did  suspend  him.  They  took  him  up  on  the 
ground  of  a  sermon  he  preached,  and  suspended  him. 
Th^  assembly  did  not  reverse  the  sentence  till  1824, 
at  which  meeting  I  pleaded  the  cause  of  the  Synod. 
It  runs  in  my  head  that  the  assembly,  while  they  re- 
moved the  censure,  directed  the  Presbytery  to  meet 
with  Mr.  Craighead  and  give  him  an  opportunity  of 
confessing  his  errors :  that  the  Presbytery  did  meet 
accordingly  ;  that  Mr.  C.  did  confess  his  errors ;  that 
he  was  thereupon  restored,  and  then  preached  be- 
fore them.  There  ia  no  discrepancy  between  the 
brethren.  Now  here  we  have  the  act  of  the  Synod 
«f  Kentucky  ratified  by  the  General  Assembly.    B«t 


268  TRIAL   OF 

Iwill  mention,  for  the  edification  of  the  brethren  an- 
other act  of  the  Synod  of  Kentucky.  That  Synod 
did  eutipend  twelve  young  men  at  once  from  the  chris- 
tian ministry;  men  who  were  regularly  ordained", 
and  this  because  it  was  satisfied  they  were  not  fitted 
from  their  want  of  Itarned  attainments  and  liieologi, 
cal  accuracy,  for  the  due  exercise  of  the  ministerial 
office.  The  last  point,  however,  was  not  near  so 
certain  in  their  case  as  in  that  now  befoie  us.  Yet 
they  were  put  out  of  office  by  the  act  of  Synod,  which 
was  to  this  amovint:  "  Resolved  that  A,  B,  and  C, 
naming  them,  be  no  longer  considered  as  ministers 
in  our  connexion."  In  consequence  of  this  they  went 
off  and  formed  themselves  into  the  Cumberland  Pres- 
bytery ai\d  have  remained  ever  since  a  distinct  body. 
Much  has  been  said  on  the  present  occasion  about 
the  necessity  of  our  having  the  records  of  the  Pres- 
bytery. There  were  no  Presbyterial  records  before 
the  Synod  of  Kentucky;  yet  the  assembly  warmly 
approved  what  the  Synod  had  done.  I  speak  what  I 
know,  for  I  was  myself  upon  the  ground.  I  witness- 
ed, it  IS  true,  an  awful  struggle.  There  were  two  or 
three  who  bore  the  brunt  of  all  the  opposition;  one 
was  named  BIythe  and  another  Cameron,  (a  good 
name.)  Violenr.  threiits  were  uttered — "  We  will 
not  be  priest-ridden:  you  are  ambitious:  you  love  to 
have  the  pre-eminence,"  &c.  But  these  men  bore 
the  cross  like  good  soldiers  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  kept 
their  ordination  vow.  Tiiey  removed  the  man  who 
was  the  father  of  all  the  errors  which  are  here  boast- 
ed of  as  some  grand  discovery.  I  have  known  per- 
sonally both  the  new  lights  of  ttie  west  and  new  lights 
of  the  east.  AH  that  is  maintained  here  was  main- 
tained there;  and  I  cannot  but  contrast  the  pdvo- 
cates  of  these  same  doctrines  on  the  two  sides  of  the 
mountains.  Here  they  are  boasted  of  as  some  great 
ones — men  of  vast  intellectual  power  :  but  over  there 
they  were  mere  clodhoppers,  backwoodsmen,  with- 
out beauty  or  splendor.  Now  I  happen  to  have  the 
books  put  forth  there  and  here:  and  I  am  willing  to 
exhibit  them  any  where  as  the  best  test  of  the  rela- 
tive strength  of  the  two.  And  what  comparison  is 
there  between  them  ?  Here  they  take  a  text,  and 
then  you  have  a  long  fine-spun  metaphysical  disquisi- 
tion upon  it,  VO.C  et  ■preterea  nihil,  of  which  the  text 
at  the  beginning  is  the  only  scriptural  thing  to  be 
found  in  the  whole  matter.  But  the  new  lights  be- 
yond tlxe  mountains  fill  their  books  with  texts  of  scrip- 
ture so  cunnmgly  misapplied  as  to  mislead  almost 
any  mind,  unless  previously  put  upon  its  guard 
against  the  wiles  of  the  devil.  It  is  next  to  impossi- 
ble for  a  plain  man  to  read  one  of  them  and  not  ex- 
claim, "  Why  this  is  all  bible  doctrine."  Every  new 
convert  was  sure  to  like  their  books.    Here  was  evi- 


MR.    BARNRS.  269 

dence  ofi?enuine  talent:  but,  among  us,  we  give  the 
praise  of  talent  to  a  man  who  after  givinj?  us  one 
text  from  the  bible,  fills  up  all  the  rest  of'  his  book 
with  nothing  but  a  farrago  of  metaphysical  nonsense. 
It  was  not  such  champions  the  Kentucky  Synod  had 
to  encounter.  We  have  been  told  by  a  brother, 
whose  attectionate  spirit  I  love,  and  whose  courage  1 
will  be  the  last  man  to  impeach,  that  some  one  said 
he  was  afraid  of  consequences.  I  charge  him  with 
no  such  (ear.  I  know  him  better  :  but  if  we  adopt  his 
measure  all  will  say  that  the  Synod  were  afraid  ol 
consequences.  The  cry  every  where  will  be,  "  There 
is  the  Synod  who.  after  they  came  within  one  step  of 
the  enemy,  turned  their  backs.  There  are  the  men 
who  in  a  preliminary  resolution  declared  the  truth, 
but  who  in  the  end  were  afraid  to  stand  by  it:  who 
first  declare  a  man  guilty  of  fundamental  errors,  and 
then  fear  the  responsibility  oi  laying  a  finger  upon 
him."  We  have  been  told  of  dangers  from  the  Ro- 
mish church:  but  what  did  The  Romish  church  do  in 
a  case  like  this?  There  was  a  day  when  she  was 
not  so  lull  of  blood  as  she  has  shewn  herself  since. 
In  the  12th  century  just  such  a  book  as  this  was  put 
forth  by  Abelard,  as  talented  and  as  handsome  a. 
man  as  Mr.  Barnes,  the  celebrated  lover  of  Eloisa. 
He  was  then  about  fifty  years  old,  and  was  possessed 
of  all  the  learning  of  his  day.  He  was  attacked  by  a 
plain,  modest,  unpretending  man,  much  such  a  one 
as  Dr.  Junkin,  the  same  who  v.'as  afterward  better 
known  a^  Saint  Bernard,  and  one  of  the  most  eminent 
of  the  fathers.  He  came  into  a  council  of  the  highest 
splendor  and  dignity,  filled  with  mitred  heads,  and 
not  without  crowned  heads  also.  Abelard  expected 
to  come  off  in  triumph  Irom  the  attack  of  so  obscure 
and  puny  an  assailant.  Bernard  came  into  the  coun- 
cil with  nothing  bu^.  the  book  of  Abelard  in  his  hands. 
He  brought  with  him  no  proceedings  of  a  lower  court. 
Abelard  objected  to  be  tried  on  the  simple  testimony 
of  his  book  alone:  but  the  court  overruled  his  objec- 
tion, and  thereupon  Abelard  did  just  what  Mr. 
Barnes  did  after  him,  he  left  the  court.  And  what 
did  the  court  decide?  It  expelled  Abelard,  great, 
and  eloquent,  and  beautiful,  and  wealthy  as  he  was, 
from  the  ministerial  office.  And  this  was  the  church 
of  Rome.  This  she  did  on  the  simple  naked  evidence 
of  a  heretical  book.  We  are  told  that  we  are  to  go 
on,  as  if  the  book  of  Mr.  Barnes  which  the  Presbytery 
had  before  them  was  sunk  to  the  bottom  of  the  Sus- 
quehannah,  but  suppose  it  was,  the  thirty  thousand 
new  copies  ol  it  now  nearly  ready  lor  publication  are 
not  sunk.  And  are  we  going  to  say  that  because  the 
book  the  Presbytery  had  before  them  is  not  here,  that 
we  will  allow  thirty  thousand  copies  of  a  book  full  of 
gross  fundamental  error  to  go  abroad  through  our 
23 


270  TRIAL    OF 

churches?  I  trow  not.  Asa  union  of  parties,  wc 
should  do  our  duty  and  bear  the  consequences  what- 
ever they  may  be.  Siippose  we  do  refer  the  case  to 
the  assembly,  we  all  know  that  i!  a  measure  like  this 
should  be  proposed  here  we  shall  have  Princeton  op- 
posed to  it.  Why?  Because  Princeton  has  become 
a  remarkably  bright  star  both  in  iiteraiurc  and  theo- 
logy ;  and  the  gentlenien  there  are  like  some  oi"  the 
brightest  and  most  talented  men  in  the  assembiy  ol 
divines  at  Westminster,  like  Coleman,  and  Selden, 
and  Li^htibot,  who  were  always  opposed  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  this  resolution.  Such  men  never  could  be 
broug'ht  up  to  the  point  ol  actual  discipline.  Their 
principle  was  Erastian.  They  were  lor  never  put 
ting  a  man  out  of  the  church  unless  by  the  order  of 
the  civil  authority.  They  held  that  it  does  no  good 
to  put  men  out.  But  this  was  no  reason  why  the 
rest  of  that  assembly  should  not  be  Presbyterians, 
and  what  was  the  consequence?  When  the  assem- 
bly actually  passed  their  resolur.ions  thesse  men  fell 
into  the  ranks  :  so  when  the  little  minority  in  Pkila- 
delphia  resolved  to  do  their  duiy  they  had  the  Cole- 
mans  and  the  Liiihtfoots  to  oppose  :  but  they  did  their 
duty  :  but  who  was  it  that  opposed  the  adjournment 
of  the  Presbytery  and  denounced  ihe  act  and  testi- 
mony and  hoisted  their  flag  upon  the  Jersey  shore? 
Yet  the  Synod  went  forward  :  they  did  adopt  the  act 
and  testimony  :  and  what  followed  ?  Why  the  Cole- 
mans,  and  the  Seldens,  and  the  Lightfoots  liell  in  and 
joined  us.  I  remember  that  declaration  of  scripture. 
"  Men  will  praise  thee  when  thou  doesi  well  for  thy- 
sell."  Yes:  let  us  do  our  duty,  and  Princeton  will 
praise  us.  But  let  the  churches  in  this  Synod  pur- 
sue a  wavering,  halting,  fluctuating  course,  their 
confidence  in  us  will  be  gone  and  our  character  will 
be  gone  with  it. 

Something  was  said  about  a  heavenly  magnanimi- 
ty. There  is,  I  know,  a  considerable  degree  of  this 
feeling  in  the  brother  who  commends  it  tons:  but 
let  him  remember  that  meu  should  always  be  just 
before  they  are  generous.  We  have  the  charge  of 
many  churches  oi  Jesus  Christ :  here  is  an  emer- 
gency :  a  popular  minister  has  broached  fundamental 
error  :  it  is  in  danger  of  spreading  :  at  such  an  hour 
surely  there  sliould  be  no  hesitation  among  those 
who  love  the  truth.  How  can  we  account  for  it  to 
God  if  we  leave  the  churches  for  six  months  to  come 
exposed  to  these  errors,  while  he  who  broached  them 
is  under  our  protection?  The  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion is  the  keystone  of  the  reformation.  If  there  is  a 
tundamental  doctrine  in  the  bible  this  certainly  is  one. 
Now  look  at  the  testimony,  and  see  the  advocates  of 
the  New  Haven  Theology  sheltering  themselves  un- 
der Mr.  Barnes'  book,  and  declaring  to  the  world  that 


MR.    BARNES.  271 

Mr.  Barnes  rejects  the  whole  doctrine  of  imputation. 
And  now  are  we  to  be  told  that  he  holds  the  doctrine 
when  his  own  Iriends  maintain,  and  rejoice  to  main- 
tain, that  he  denies  it?  Is  this  no'.hins:  to  show  that 
the  doctrine  charged  upon  him  is  in  his  book  ?  What ! 
a  man  work  a  commenlar>f  on  the  epistle  to  tiic  Ro- 
mans, where,  ifany  where  in  the  bible,  this  very  doc- 
trine is  formally  and  profesi^edly  discussed  and  esta- 
blished, and  yei  not  say  a  word  about  it?  Hnvvdid  they 
hound  out  an  Arian  from  the  Synod  of  Ulster?  A 
part  ol  the  Synod  urered  that  the  accused  was  per- 
fectly silent  concerning'  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  di- 
vinity, and  how  could  it  be  pretended  that  he  was 
ffuilty  of  denying  it?  But  William  Cook  replied  that 
the  very  fact  of  his  silence  was  in  itsetf  the  strongest 
proof  that  he  denied  the  doctrine.  And  he  spoke 
sense  and  truth  in  saying  so.  So  here,  a  total  silence 
touching  the  doctrine  of  imputation  in  a  work  upon 
the  Romans  is  the  most  conclusive  proof  that  can  be 
given  that  the  writer  of  that  book  did  not  believe  the 
doctrine.  We  need  not  be  told  by  the  New  Haven 
men  that  he  rejects  it:  his  silence  is  in  the  place  of 
all  arguments  to  demonstrate  the  fact.  Now  ij  it  be 
true  that  here  is  a  man  clothed  with  the  ministerial 
office  who  holds  errors  as  fundamental  as  this,  and 
that  this  Synod  has  the  power  of  suspending  him 
from  that  office  for  heresy,  why,  in  the  names  ol  truth 
and  duty,  let  us  do  it.  If  there  is  a  brother  who  can- 
not go  so  far,  let  us  bless  God  that  we  can;  and  oh, 
let  us  do  it.  Let  ue  condemn  errors  like  this,  find 
them  where  we  may,  and  save  the  churches  under 
our  care  from  so  great  a  desolation. 

Mr.  Winchester.  The  question  before  the  House 
is  on  the  reference  of  this  case  to  the  General  As- 
sembly. Two  inquiries  naturally  arise  :  1st.  as  to  the 
right  of  reference:  and  2d,  as  to  its  propriety.  In 
order  to  irive  the  House  an  opportunity  to  discvies 
the  question  of  right,  the  Moderator  declined  deciding 
the  point  of  order,  or  at  least  did  not  insist  upon  en- 
forcing the  decision  he  had  given.  Now  if  we  have 
no  right  to  refer  the  case,  the  Assembly  will  never 
listen  to  a  proceedinfir  that  violates  the  constitution 
ot  the  church.  And  if  we  do  violate  it,  we  cannot 
take  advantage  of  any  difficulties  which  may  grow 
out  of  such  a  course,  nor  can  we  remove  them.  To 
me  it  is  clear  that  in  the  sense  of  the  book,  this  case 
has  been  "decided."  To  assist  the  Synod  in  deter- 
mining what  is  meant  by  a  case  being  "  decided,"  I 
refer  them  to  the  10th  sub  section  of  the  chapter  on 
appeals.  "  The  decision  may  be  either  to  confirm  or 
reverse,  in  whole,  or  in  part,  the  decision  of  the  in- 
ferior Judicatory  :  or  to  remit  the  cause,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  amending  the  record,  should  it  appear  to  be 
moorrect  or  defective ;  or  for  a  new   trial."    Here 


272  TRIAL   OF 

you  see  that  in  order  to  a  case's  being  decided,  it  is 
not  necessary  that  punishment  should  have  been  in- 
flicted. TJiat  I'ornis  no  part  oi  the  decision.  The 
decision  is  the  final  vote  on  the  appeal.  When  a 
question  of  appeal  comes  up,  the  final  vote  is  the 
thing  called  lor,  "  to  confirm  or  reverse,  in  whole,  or 
in  part,  the  decision  of  the  inferior  Judicatory."  Have 
we  not  done  this  ?  Have  we  not  '"  reversed  the  de- 
cision of  ilie  inferior  Judicatory?"  reversed  it  "in 
whole?"  If  so  the  case  is  decided,  and  we  cannot 
refer  it.  The  question  for  the  decision  ol  the  House 
was  simply  this:  Shall  this  appeal  be  sustained  or 
not?  Before  that  question  was  put,  the  reference 
might  have  been  made:  for  then  the  case  was  "  not 
yet  decided  :"  but  the  vote  of  last  evening  sustained 
the  appeal,  and  reversed  the  decision  of  the  Presby- 
tery. What  punishment  shall  be  inflicted,  is  quite 
another  question,  and  it  has  no  connexion  with  it. 
This  was  a  case  between  two  parti  s:  tliey  difl'ered: 
and  the  cause  came  up  to  us  as  the  appellant  court. 
They  gave  us  the  best  evidence  that  could  be  got : 
and  the  quesion  was  raised,  "sustain  or  not  sus- 
tain?" and  the  vote  was  to  sustain.  It  has  been  said 
if  we  refer  this  case  in  its  present  ptage,  the  members 
of  Synod  will  have  a  vote  in  the  Assembly.  Now  I 
call  the  court  to  the  paper  presented  by  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge, It  contemplates  a  new  trial  before  the  As- 
sembly, and  thus  in  consequence  of  some  apprehend- 
ded  unfairness  in  the  present  proceeding  on  account 
of  the  absence  of  the  Presbyterial  book,  and  he  tells 
us  that  if  we  adopt  his  measure,  we  shall  be  entitled 
to  our  votes  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly.  Now  I 
would  ask  every  member  here  present,  whether  he 
will  not  enter  thai  body  having  prejudged  the  case 
on  which  he  is  to  pass?  Have  not  most  of  us  decided 
that  the  appeal  shall  be  sustained?  How  then  can 
vye  come  into  the  Assembly  and  vote  there?  Icon- 
less,  for  one,  that  if  I  were  a  member  of  the  Assem- 
bly I  could  not  do  it.  I  have  sat  upon  the  case,  and 
judged  it,  and  my  vote  has  gone  forth  belore  the 
world.  Again:  when  you  have  decided  that  a  man 
has  been  found  guilty  of  holding  doctrines  like  these, 
what  authority  have  you  totbibear  laying  on  him  the 
discipline  ol  the  church  ?  It  he  were  a  man  of  weak 
xinderstanding,  it  would  be  a  ditlerent  case.  But  no 
such  plea  can  be  advanced  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Barnes. 
And  if  you  say  that  such  a  man  shall  go  on  teaching 
fundamental  errors,  can  you  refrain  from  passing 
sentence  upon  him?    Suppose  a  court  finds  a  man 

fuilty  of  murder,  is  it  lelt  to  the  discretion  of  the 
udge  whether  he  will  pass  sentence  or  not?  Surely 
not.  It  is  the  duty  of  his  place.  He  must  do  it. 
Mercy  is  not  with  him  to  exercise :  that  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  executive.    The  sentence  is  a  neces- 


MR.    BARNES.  273 

sary  consequence  of  the  conviction.  You  as  judges 
in  this  case  have  declared  that  the  aptieal  shall  be 
sustained:  and  that  having  been  decided  the  law 
must  taKe  its  course.  The  book  makes  it  imperative. 
"  The  person  found  lEruilty  shall  re  admonished  or 
rebuked,  or  excluded  from  church  privileges,  as  the 
case  shall  appear  to  deserve,  until  hegive  satipfUctory 
evidence  ol"  repentance."  (Ch.  4:  17.)  Here  it  is  not 
left  to  your  discretion:  it  i,s  made  obligatory:  the 
sentence  "  shall  be"  p;issed.  Suppose  the  case  should 
go  before  the  Assembly  on  Reference,  and  that' body 
after  weighing  the  circumstances  should  reverse  the 
decision  of  this  House:  the  question  would  arise, 
was  [hat  a  point  presented  to  them  for  their  action? 
They  cannot  do  it.  They  can  reverse  a  judicial  de- 
cision only  in  an  appeal  or  complaint.  In  the  chapter 
of  our  Book  ol'Discipliiie  on  lleview  and  Control,  it 
is  expressly  declared:  "no  judicial  decision,  how- 
ever, of  a  Judicatory  shall  be  reversed,  unless  it  be 
regularly  brought  up  by  appeal  or  complaint."  Now 
is  there  a  man  who  doubts  that  our  decision  last 
evening  was  a  "judicial  decision?"  There  is  none. 
So  it  is  clear  that  if  we  do  refer  the  case  to  the  As- 
sembly, that,  body  can  do  nothing  in  the  matter.  If 
our  decision  cannot  be  reversed,  why  refer  it?  Do 
we  want  to  ask  the  Assembly  whether  we  shall  do 
that  which  the  Book  declares  it  to  be  our  duty  to  do  ? 

Dr.  Cathcart  interposing.  That  clause  refers  only 
to  cases  coming  upon  review  of  church  books:  it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  cases  of  appeal. 

Mr.  Winchester.  I  grant  if.  is  found  in  the  chap- 
ter on  Review  and  Control :  but  it  extends  to  cases 
of  Reference  as  much  as  to  any  thing  else.  It  de- 
clares that  no  sentence  can  be  reversed,  except  it  is 
brought  up  by  appeal  or  complaint.  You  cannot  refer 
the  case  in  its  present  stage,  without  a  violation  of 
the  constitution.  If  i.  should  go  up,  what  will  be  the 
consequence?  The  parties  can  prove  from  your  book 
of  Discipline  that  it  ought  not  to  be  there.  Thus 
you  put  yourselves  completely  into  their  hands  j  and 
there  you  must  wait  till  the  next  meeting  of  Siiyod  ; 
and  then  your  duty  will  still  be  just  what  it  was,  and 
the  same  round  can  be  gone  over  again.  And  where 
or  when  is  there  to  be  an  end  of  it?  Your  duty, 
your  obvious  and  solemn  duty  is,  to  carry  out  the 
decision  of  yesterday  by  declaring  what  punishment 
the  convicted  party  deserves. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  one  chief  reason  urged 
in  favor  of  the  reference  has  been  the  contumacy  of 
the  Presbytery  and  of  Mr.  Barnes,  in  refusing  their 
records  and  in  refusing  to  plead :  and  it  has  been  con- 
tended that  the  testimony  is  ex-parte.  The  whole 
question  turns  on  this.  If  that  minute  book  which 
23' 


~74  TRIAL    0* 

has  been  withheld  is  essential  to  our  orderly  proceed' 
ing,  tiien  we  can  neither  refer  ihe  case  to  the  Assem- 
bly nor  send  it  down  to  the  Presbytery.  We  must 
first  settle  the  question  wiiether  you  have  proceeded 
fairly  in  the  case.  Now  then  let  us  briefly  review  the 
history  of  this  trial.  What  is  the  history  of  ihis  case "2 
It  is  short,  and  plain.  Dr.  Junkin  tabled  a  coniplaiQt 
before  Presbytery,  against  Mr.  Barnes,  charging  him 
with  holding  and  publishing  heretical  o|)inions.  The 
evidence  wc^s  adduced  in  support  of  thechnrge.  And 
what  was  this  evidence  ?  Mr.  Steel  here  testified 
before  us  that  there  was  none  other  than  Mr.  Barnes's 
book.  While  so  much  has  been  said  about  other 
evidence,  we  have  testimony  under  oath,  that  none 
other  was  produced.  Dr.  Junkin  declared,  in  the 
outset,  that  he  would  do  nothing  but  quote  the  book. 
What  other  evidence  do  gentlemen  want?  It  has 
been  said  that  Mr.  Barnes  quoted  Edwards,  and 
VVilherspoon,  and  other  authors.  But  1  ask,  are  the 
works  of  Edwards  evidence  of  what  Mr.  Barnes 
teaches  in  liis  book  upon  the  Romans'?  Surely  not; 
they  were  used  only  in  argument.  What  was  the 
evidence  given  in  before  the  argument  commenced? 
What,  but  the  simple  book  of  Mr.  Barnes?  I  chal- 
lenge here,  any  member  ot  that  Presbytery  to  show 
what  other  evidence  was  brought  belore  them.  Dr. 
Junkin  charges  errors  in  this  book.  You  may  bring 
ten  thousand  other  books  belore  the  court,  and  will 
they  prove  that  the  errors  charged  are  not  in  this 
book '?  If  I  charge  you  with  libelling  me  in  a  certain 
letter,  you  may  bring  forward  a  thousand  of  your 
letters  which  are  not  libellous  ;  but  will  they  prove 
that  the  letter  I  refer  to  contains  no  libel  ?  I  want  no 
better  proolthat  a  certain  thing  is  not  true,  than  that 
it  cannot  be  true.  No  man  can  v;ork  impossibilities. 
And  if  it  is  impossible  that  Mr.  Barnes  could,  in  the 
way  suggested,  disprove  the  errors  of  his  book,  then  I 
am  sure  that  he  did  not  so  disprove  them.  But  it  is 
said  that  the  evidence  produced  by  Dr.  Junkin  was 
not  put  on  record.  But  was  that,  which  is  said  to 
have  been  adduced  by  Mr.  Barnes  put  on  record? 
We  say  that  it  was  not :  can  they  prove  that  it  was? 
We  have  taken  the  best  proof  which  under  the  cir- 
cumstances as  we  can  get ;  we  have  it  under  oath  : 
and  it  has  never  been  pretended  that  any  other  evi- 
dence was  recorded.  They  talk  of  "other  testimo- 
ny," but  was  it  recorded  testimony  ?  A  court  of  ap- 
peal can  only  look  at  what  is  in  the  record  of  the 
court  below.  Another  difficulty  is,  that  the  whole 
record  of  the  proceeding  is  not  here  ;  and  Mr.  Barnes 
says,  that  without  this,  the  trial  cannot  be  constitu- 
tionally conducted.  Well :  the  Presbytery  was  called 
upon  to  produce  the  whole  record:  they  declined 
doing  so,  and  pleaded  to  your  jurisdiction.    Dt.  Jun- 


MR.    BARNES.  275 

kJD  applied  to  the  Btated  clerk  ot  the  Presbytery  to 
eet  a  copy  ot  the  record  :  the  clerk  rcl'used  it.  This 
IS  on  record:  and  that  record,  on  an  Hpneal,  will  go 
before  the  Assembly  in  justificalion  of  liie  Synod.  I 
will  now  call  the  aitenlinn  of  Synod  to  the  chapter 
"concerning  clerks."  (Form  of  Government,  Chap. 
20.)  It  is  there  declared  that  "  it.  slmll  be  the  duty  of 
the  clerk  besides  recording  the  Iransactions,  to  pre- 
serve the  ri^cords  careiuUy;  and  to  grant  extracts 
from  them,  whenever  properly  required  ;  and  such 
records,  under  the  hand  ol  the  clerk,  ehali  be  consid- 
ered as  authentic  vouchers  of  the  fact  which  they 
declare,  in  any  ecclesiastical  judicatory,  to  every  part 
ol  tlie  church."  Here  it  is  made  the  clerk's  duty  to 
grant  extracts  from  the  minutes:  if  he  had  done  so, 
and  authenticated  them  by  his  sif^nature,  that  copy 
would  have  been  of  the  same  force  and  validity  as  the 
original  records  themselves.  In  the  4(h  Chapter  of 
the  Book  ol'  Disciitline,  sec.  16,  it  is  declared  "  the 
judgment  shall  be  regularly  entered  on  the  records 
of  the  Judicatory  :  and  the  parties  shall  be  allowed 
copies  of  the  whole  proceedings,  at  their  own  ex- 
pense, if  they  demand  them.  And  incase  of  referen- 
ces or  appeals,  the  Judicatory  referring  or  appealed 
from,  shall  send  authentic  copies  ol  the  whole  process 
to  the  higher  Judicator) ."  Here  the  parlies  are  to 
be  allowed  copies  not  only  of  the  judement,  but  of  the 
whole  proceedings.  Dr.  Junkin  did  demand  this  :  and 
the  clerk  of  Presbytery  violated  Dr.  Junkin's  rights, 
and  his  own  duiy  by  refusing  it.  He  ought  to  have 
been  furnished  with  an  authenticated  copy  of  the 
records  of  the  whole  proceeding.  When  Dr.  Junkin 
demands  it,  and  this  House  demands  it,  and  a  plea  is 
taken  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  House,  there  is  noth- 
ing to  support  it,  but  a  bald  and  naked  refusal  by 
their  own  clerk  of  what  it  was  his  duty  to  furnish, 
and  contumacy  in  the  Presbytery  in  withholding  the 
book,  they  ought  to  have  submitted.  If  conduct  like 
this  is  to  be  winked  at,  then  nothing  can  be  eatjier  than 
to  create  a  bar  to  the  progress  of  any  trial. 

I  will  now  look  at  the  plea  to  our  jurisdiction 
which  has  been  put  in.  It  covers  ail  the  Presbyte- 
ries constituting  the  late  Synod  of  Delaware.  It  is 
said  that  the  Synod  has  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case 
where  an  appeal  is  taken.  Granted.  AVe  do  not 
clairnany.  Butwe  commence  our  claim  now,  after 
the  appeal,  and  what  is  the  substance  of  our  claim  ? 
It  is  a  power  to  review  the  records  of  a  subordinate 
judicatory,  and  to  undo  what  was  done  irregularly 
or  erroneously.  But  there  are  other  members  of 
that  Synod  who  have  acted  in  direct  contradiction  to 
the  doctrine  of  their  own  plea.  Have  they  not  taken 
their  seats  and  voted  here?  Their  records  were  re- 
fused on  the  ground  that  we  have  no  jurisdiction  ia 


276  TRIAL    OF 

the  case  ;  and  yet  they  did  sit  and  exerciee  jurisdic- 
tion where  they  contend  that  no  lawful  jurisdiction 
can  be  exercised.  They  do,  by  act  and  deed,  admit 
our  jurisdiction,  while  in  words  ihey  deny  it.  We 
may  therefore  demand  their  records  on  the  ground  of 
their  own  concessions?. 

As  to  the  last  assembly,  tlie  general  understand- 
ing certainly  was  this,  that  every  case  should  come 
upregrularly  to  this  Synod.  I  never  had  a  doubi  that 
tnat  was  ilie  intention  of  the  aBsembiy.  If  (hen  the 
Synod  jro  on  to  issue  this  case,  whicli  has  come  regu- 
larly before  ihcm,  the  assembly  will  be  bound  by  con- 
sistency to  sustain  us.  It  has  been  said  here  again 
and  again,  (and  1  was  sur|jrised  that  the  Moderator 
did  not  intenupt  such  assertions,)  that  Mr.  Barnes 
has  had  no  opportuiiity  of  being  heard.  This  was 
not  intended  lor  the  members  of  this  court.  fSo;  we 
all  know  the  fact  was  otherwise.  1  will  not  say  that 
it  was  uttered  with  the  intention   of  impressing  the 

Sopulace.  Certain  it  is  that  the  lact  is  not  so.  Mr. 
lames  had  an  opportunity  of  being  beard.  He  was 
advised,  and  pressed,  and  urged  to  delend  himself: 
but  he  contuinicioasly  refused.  When  the  opijoriu- 
nity  was  oHered  him,  and  the  anxiety  was  universal 
that  he  should  reply,  he  refused,  in  order  liiat  the 
case  might  be  embarrassed,  that  so  some  ground 
might  be  allbrded  for  appeal  or  complaint.  1  do  not 
see  why  the  book  sh«uld  bear  harder  on  the  appel- 
lant than  on  the  appellee.  The  book  says  that  if  the 
appellant  abandons  his  appeal,  the  cause  cannot  al- 
terward  go  on;  and  shall  the  accused  have  the  ad- 
vantage cf  his  own  wrong  when  the  same  advantage 
is  denied  to  the  appellant?  There  was  one  argument 
urged  by  Mr.  McKinney  that  is  well  worthy  ol'  con- 
sideration. It  js  founded  on  the  16th  sub-section  of 
the  chapter  on  appeals. 

"It  shall  always  tie  deemed  the  duty  of  the  judicatory, 
whose  judgment  is  appealed  Ironi,  to  sirid  autheniic  copies  of 
all  their  records,  and  of  the  whole  tsstimony  relain^  to  the 
matter  of  ihe  appeal.  And  if  any  judicatory  shall  neglect  ita 
duty  in  this  respect,  especially  if  iliereby  an  appellant,  who 
has  conducted  with  regularity  on  his  part,  is  deprived  of  the 
privilege  of  having  his  appeal  reasonably  issued  ;  such  judi- 
catory shall  be  censured  according  to  the  circumstances  of 
the  case." 

This  law  contemplates  two  cases :  one  of  which  is 
where  an  appellant  is  precluded  frotn  his  appeal 
seasonably  issued,  by  the  withholding  of  the  records 
which  ought  to  have  been  furnished  to  him ;  this  is 
such  a  case.  But  the  case  is  not  so  peculiar  that  for 
want  of  these  papers  it  cannot  go  on.  But  a  case 
might  arise  where  the  want  of  papers  would  stop  all 
proceedings:  in  that  case  "especially"  the  judicatory 
refusing  or  neglecting  to  furnish  the  records,  "  shall 
be  censured  according  to  the  circumstances." 


MR.    BARNES.  277 

Much  has  been  eaid  about  a  distin.-tion  between 
errors  wl)ich  are  and  which  are  not  "  fundamental." 
And  this  1  know  forms  an  obstacle  with  many,  in  as- 
eentinff  to  the  censure  of  Mr.  Barnes.  They  admit 
he  holds  error,  but  doubt  whether  it  is  fundamental 
error.  Now  in  cases  of  this  kind,  I  have  always 
adopted  one  rule  for  my  own  sovernment.  The  ques- 
tion for  us  to  decide  is  not  whether  Mr.  Barnes  is  a 
good  man,  or  a  useful  man  :  thai  is  not  a  question  for 
triis  judicatory  to  settle.  What  we  are  called  to  de- 
cide is  whether  Mr.  Barnes  is  a  gocd  Presbyterian 
minister,  in  judging:  of  this,  we  are  lo  act  under  the 
constitution.  We  are  not  a  church  without  a  creed. 
In  a  church  on  that  plan,  the  only  question  touching 
a  minister's  standing  is,  '  Does  he  preach  the  truth, 
for  substance  V  Bu'.  that  is  not  llie  question  here.  If 
we  belong-ed  to  the  Methodist  connexion,  a  man 
might  come  to  the  Synod  and  be  admitted  to  preach 
provided  he  denies  (,as  Mr.  Barnes  doe.«  in  his  book) 
anything  like  decrees  touching  individual  sinners, 
but  admits  them  touching  nation.^,  or  founds  them  on 
good  works  foreseen.  But  should  we  admit  such  a 
man  among  us  as  a  man  who  believes  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  divine  decrees  ?  But  why  not?  He  may  hold 
such  views  and  yet  hold  more  ol  truth  than  Mr. 
Barnes  holds:  yet  we  should  all  vole  to  exclude  him. 
If  it  was  discovered  that  one  of  our  own  ministers 
embraced  such  notions,  we  should  tell  him  that  as 
long  as  he  remained  in  our  church  he  muE^t  believe  as 
we  do.  VV'e  do  not  compel  a  man  lo  believe  as  we 
do:  and  if  we  could,  we  should  not.  A  head  so  soft 
that  it  can  be  "  squeezed"  into  any  mould  we  please, 
is  a  head  we  dont  want  among  us.  Our  difficulty  is 
with  hard  heads,  on  which  no  sense  can  make  any 
impression.  No  man  asked  Mr.  Barnes  to  enter  the 
Presbyterian  church.  He  entered  it  voluntarily.  He 
read  beforehand  the  vows  he  was  to  take;  and  he  set- 
tled the  question  ol"  tnking  or  rejecting  them,  on  his 
knees:  (as  I  suppose.)  If  a  man  enters  a  church  under- 
standingly,  it  js  a  solemn  covenant  transaction.  The 
church  says  to  such  an  applicant:  "  We  will  admit 
you  if  you  receive  bonafide  our  Confession  of  Faith." 
The  appellant  says,  by  word  and  deed,  "  I  do  re- 
ceive it,  honestly,  ex  animo.'^  On  that  pledge  Mr. 
Barnes  was  received.  But;  if,  after  farther  examina- 
tion and  reflexion,  he  finds  that  the  Confession  he 
has  embraced  contains  what  is  "  absurd,"  (and  if  he 
thinks  so  he  has  a  right  to  say  so,)  surely  he  ought 
no  longer  to  profess  to  receive  it.  For  my  own  part 
I  could  not  remain  in  a  church  under  such  circum- 
stances, for  a  single  hour. 

But  Princeton  has  been  quoted  upon  us.  Now  I 
had  not  long  since  a  personal  conversation  with  Pro- 
lessor  Hodge;  and  I  asked  him,  "Do  you  believe 


278  TRIAL    OF 

that  a  man  whodeniesany  one  doctrineof  our  church 
ought  to  be  a  minister  in  our  connexion?"  He  eaid 
that  his  mind  had  long  been  made  up  in  the  negative. 
I  confess  I  rejoiced  to  hear  such  a  declaration  com- 
ing from  Princeton. 

As  to  the  last  Assembly,  we  are  only  aclin»out 
the  spirit  of  what  was  there  done.  I  regret  we  have 
not  been  Ciirnished,  as  yet,  with  the  minutes  of  that 
assembly,  (I  mean,  however,  in  this  remark,  no  cen- 
sure on  the  Stated  Clerk;)  if  we  had  (hem  here  I 
could  show  that  the  assembly  pronounces  such  errors 
as  are  charged  upon  Mr.  Barnes  to  be  "  pestiferous 
heresies,"  and  that  "  he  who  holds  tliem  ought  not 
to  be  a  minister  in  (he  Presbyterian  church."  The 
declaration  was  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Junkin  ;  and  he  was 
careful  to  put  into  the  enumeration  of  errors  those 
contained  in  Mr.  Barnes'  book.  The  assembly  adopt- 
ed the  paper,  and  declared  to  all  the  churches  that 
such  tenets  arR  "  peslii'erous  heresies.''  It  was 
Princeton  which  drew  up  the  final  miimte;  and  it  re- 
ceived the  Princeton  vote.  We  therefore  are  carry- 
ing out  (be  decisions  of  the  last  assembly.  If  not,  I 
do  not  understand  the  En^Mish  language.  Now  I  put 
it  to  the  brethren,  shall  we  carry  out  these  positions? 
or  shall  we  nit?  For  one  I  believe  that  the  destiny 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  depends  on  a  firm  and 
Tearless  decision  of  this  question.  If  after  toing  as 
far  as  we  have,  we  shall  shrink  now.  our  churches 
will  lauirh  at  us.  They  will  say,  "  Well,  if  the  Sy- 
nod of  Philadelphia,  with  such  a  majority,  are  not 
willing  to  come  to  the  p?)intaiid  say  thai  a  man  who 
holds  such  errors  i  ujiht  not  to  be  n  Presbyterian 
minister,  it  is  in  vain  for  us  ever  to  look  lor  a  decision 
of  the  question.  We  must  give  it  up.  They  are 
looking  with  intense  an.Kiety  at  our  deliberations. 
There  is  an  impatient.  ea<rerness  to  read  the  papers 
in  which  they  are  reported:  and  I  now  predict  that 
if  this  Synod  shall  not  act  out  according  (o  the 
origii^al  ri^^olution,  you  never  will  condemn  a  heretic 
in  the  Preshyierian  cliurch.  You  will  roll  back  the 
work  of  reformation  lor  twenty  years.  Men  will  say 
those  who  take  the  foremost  stand  m  favor  of  ortho- 
doxy, when  it  comes  to  (he  point,  shrink  back  and 
refuse  to  act."  We  are  now  called  upon  by  our  offi- 
cial duly  and  by  the  voice  of  the  church  to  perform  a 
sublime  act:  an  act  which  I  believe  to  be  ot  the  very 
last  importance.  I  hope  we  shall,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  a  spirit  of  prayer,  come  to  such  a  decision  as 
we  shall  meet  with  pleasure  when  we  stand  our- 
selves belore  the  last  and  great  tribunal. 

A  motion  was  now  made  for  a  recess.  [Consider- 
able contusion  prevailed.  Mr.  Musgrave  rose  to 
speak,  but  could  not  proceed.  Some  cried  that  they 
were  ready  to  go  on  without  adjourning  for  dinner : 


MR.    BARNEQ.  279 

they  would  sit  till  midnight.  Others  proposed  that 
all  should  abstain  Iroin  speaking  una  go  to  voting. 
Dr.  Breckenridge  remonstrated.  He  said  to  decide 
in  such  a  state  of  the  house  would  be  acting  under 
all  the  severity  of  a  gag  law.] 

The  Moderator  called  to  order.  Silence  being  in 
some  degree  restored,  the  question  on  the  recess  was 
put,  and  lost. 

Mr.  MusGKAVE  at  length  obtained  the  floor,  and 
was  suffered  to  proceed.  He  spoke,  he  said,  with  a 
view  to  show  the  inexpediency  of  adopting  the  reso- 
lution for  susjoending  Mr.  Barnes.  Tlie  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, said  Mr.  M.  while  it  gives  us  the  power  ot  re- 
viewing the  acts  of  the  lower  courts,  iorbids  us  to  re- 
verse iiny  judicial  decision  which  thcf-e  records  may 
contain,  unless  on  an  appeal  or  complaint.  The  rea- 
sons for  such  a  provision  are  obvious.  It  such  a  pro- 
ceeding should  be  allowed  t\tb  parties  would  be  left 
without  notice,  and  it  might  be  that  they  were  al- 
ready well  content  with  the  decision  belov.  But  this 
provision  is  not  universal ;  nor  does  it  prevent  the  re- 
ference now  moved.  For  to  reverse  on  reference  is 
one  thing,  and  to  reverse  on  review  is  another.  Even 
admitting  tliat  we  have  decided  this  cane  in  part,  it 
does  not  follow  that  we  have  no  right  to  refer  the 
residue  of  the  case  to  the  assembly.  Allowing  that 
we  have  sustained  the  appeal,  we  may  still  refer  to 
the  highest  judicatory  the  question  touching  the  de- 
gree of  censure  to  be  inflicted.  We  may  say  that  al- 
though we  are  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  the  charges, 
or  of  some  of  them,  we  had  rather  not  press  the  case 
to  a  decision  as  to  the  punishment  to  be  inflicted  :  we 
prefer  leaving  that  to  their  judgment.  Let  them  de-_ 
termine  what  the  sentence  ought  to  be.  Most  of 
what  has  been  said  against  the  reference  proceeds  on 
the  assumption  that  those  who  are  in  favor  of  that 
measure  do  not  wish  Mr.  Barnes  to  be  censured  at 
all.  But  this  is  not  true.  We  think  he  does  deserve 
censure,  and  we  wish  that  the  assembly  may  censure 
him  ;  and,  if  he  shall  not  retract,  we  are  willing  not 
only  that  he  should  be  suspended,  but  even  deposed. 
And  although,  perhaps,  in  strictness,  there  is  no  just 
ground  to  say  that  we  have  acted  unjustly  in  the 
case,  yet  I  know  it  we  now  proceed,  that  we  shall 
hear  from  all  quarters  the  cry  of  rashness,  violence, 
cruelty  and  persecution.  I  do  not  wish  the  Synod  to 
expose  itselt  to  this  charge.  The  case  will  go  to  the 
assembly  at  any  rate  ;  and  if  you  persist  in  this  step, 
it  will  go  with  a  much  larger  minority  than  other- 
Avise.  It  you  consent  to  the  reference,  the  minority 
will  be  a  very  small  though  not  a  despicable  one.  But 
if  you  go  on  as  is  proposed,  we  shall  protest  and  com- 
plain, and  that  will  bring  the  case  before  the  assem- 
bly, if  nothing  else  well.    That  we  may  all  go  to- 


280  TRIAL  OF 

gether,  and  that  we  may  avoid  the  unpleasant  impu- 
tations which  will  otherwise  be  cast  upon  the  Synod. 
1  hope  we  shall  consent  to  refer  the  residue  of  the 
case  to  the  General  Assembly.  [Cries  for  the  ques- 
tion.] 

Mr.  Olmstead.  Some  gentlemen  wish  to  insist 
upon  their  rights  here.  J  am  in  favor  of  the  refer- 
ence; and  I  move  Synod  now  take  a  recess. 

Dr.  McDowell.  1  have  sat  and  listened  patiently 
thus  far :  but  1  feel  a  desire  to  express  what  my 
views  are;  and  I  do  not  like  to  be  driven  in  this 
manner. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Many  are  now  present  who  will  eo 
away  this  afternoon.  It  is  not  we  that  drive  the  de- 
cision ;  it  is  the  other  side  wlio  compel  us  to  insist 
upon  it  by  protracting  the  discussion  without  end.  If 
we  are  going  to  vote  before  we  eat,  (and  many  are 
resolved  on  tliat)  let  us  vote  soon. 

The  question  was  now  put  on  the  Recess,  and 
lost. 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  a 
majority  of  the  House  are  opposed  to  the  resolution. 
I  shall  be  content  if  I  can  get  them  to  say  this,  that  in 
consequenceof  the  peculiar  nature  of  this  case,  and^ 
and  from  a  desire  to  avoid  even  the  appearance  of 
rashness  and  precipitancy,  we  are  willing  to  leave  it 
to  the  Assembly  to  say  what  shall  be  the  censure 
inflicted  on  Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  I  do  not  like  to  object  to 
every  thing  a  brother  brings  before  the  House:  but 
why  should  we  spend  more  than  the  four  hours 
which  have  been  consumed  already,  on  the  question 
whether  we  will  strike  out  the  resolution  reported  by 
a  committee? 

Mr.  Olmstead.  I  am  ver^  unwilling  to  detain  the 
House,  but  I  shall  certainly  insist  upon  my  rights.  I 
will  oti'er  but  a  i'ew  reasons  for  the  ground  1  shall 
take.  One  reason  why  I  insist  upon  speaking  is,  the 
imputation  which  fell  from  a  father  over  the  way, 
(Mr.  Latta)  that  a  refusal  to  pass  the  vote  of  suspen- 
sion against  Mr.  Barnes,  will  manifest  a  sympathy 
with  his  errors.  Now  I  have  no  sympathy  with  hia 
errors  :  not  a  particle:  and  I  repel  the  insinuation  as 
injurious  and  unfounded.  It  is  said  we  have  no  right 
to  look  at  consequences.  Why,  what  have  the 
brethren  been  doing  but  looking  at  consequences,  the 
whole  time?  They  have  been  urging  ue  with  all 
their  might  to  look  at  the  consequences  of  circulating 
Mr.  Barnes's  book.  Now  let  us  look  at  consequen- 
ces a  little  farther  ;  let  us  see  whether  the  interests 
©f  truth,  instead  of  being  guarded  and  secured,  will 
not  be  materially  injured  :  that  is  my  opinion.  I  am 
sorry  to  differ  from  my  brethren  and  fathers,  but  I 
cannot  help  it.    I  differ  with  some  as  to  the  point  of 


MR.    BARNES.  281 

Reference,  I  think  we  may  refer  tlie  case  for  advice 
on  one  point,  viz.  wiiat  shall  be  the  judgment  we  are 
to  pass.  We  certainly  have  a  right  to  refer,  thus 
far;  though,  for  myself,  I  am  not  unwilling  to  refer 
the  whole.  This  is  an  "important"  cane,  surely  :  it 
has  a  most  important  bearing  :  and  our  hook  declares 
that  "cases  which  are  new,  impcrtant.  difficult,  of 
peculiar  delicacy,  the  decision  ot  which  ma}^  estab- 
lish principles  or  precedents  of  extensive  in["uence" 
may  he  reierred.  Tiiis  certainly  is  a  case  very  pecu- 
liar in  its  circumstances:  we  have  not  the  records  of 
The  Presbytery  ;  we  v/ere  obliged  to  go  on  without 
them,  and  without  the  presence  of  the  accused.  Sure- 
ly such  a  case  may  be  referred. 

There  is  another  reason  why  I  am  in  favor  "^f  the  re- 
ference. I  wish  the  orthodox  portion  of  the  Synod  to 
act,  if  possible,  in  conjunction  with  their  brethren  :  if 
you  go  on  to  suspend,  this  cannot  be  ;  but  if  you  refer, 
it  will  be  the  case,  to  a  considerable  .extent.  The 
less  unanimity  you  show,  the  more  will  the  influence 
of  your  decision  be  impaired.  I  hope  in  the  issue 
that  we  shall  be  united.  If  you  refer  the  case,  the  in- 
fluence of  the  vote  sustaining  the  appeal  will  be  ex- 
tensively felt:  but  if  you  proceed  to  suspend  Mr. 
Barnes,  it  will  be  lost  in  the  sympathy  you  will  excite 
in  his  behalf. 

[Cries  for  the  question.] 

Mr.  Wynkoop.  If  we  cannot  decide  the  case  here, 
without  the  Presbyterial  records,  can  they  decide  it 
in  the  court  above  without  those  records  1 

The  confusion  increasing,  and  loud  cries  on  all 
pides  for  the  question  being  made  whenever  any 
member  ruse  to  speak, 

The  question  was  at  length  put  on  Dr.  Brecken- 
ridge's  motion  to  reler  ;  and  decided  in  the  negative, 
by  yeas  and  nays  as  Ibllows  : 

Ayes— Ministers.  Messrs.  .T.  Kennedy,  BIythe,  McDowell, 
Neil,  Belville,  Dinwiddle,  Adair,  Moiss,  Barr,  A.  G.  Morrison, 
.'.  Breckinridge,  Miisgrave,  Phelps,  Harrison,  Post,  Br.owor'a, 
Graff;  Catlicart,  R.  Kennedy,  H.  R.  Wilson,  McKnigh  , 
Dewitt,  Cregh,  Watson,  Dickey,  Olmstead,  Gilbert,  How, 
Hammil.  Jones,  Landis,  Knox,  McKim,  Campbell,  Brown, 
G.  W.  Kennedy. 

Elders — Messrs.  Stratton,  Wallace,  Graydon,  Miilipan,  R. 
Boyd, 

Noes— Ministers.  Messrs  Gre<»n,  W,  Latta,  McCalia, 
Lawrence,  C.  Willinmson,  Winchester,  J.  Grier,  Harnedi 
McCuen,  Macklin,  Elliott,  Cuyler,  Gibson,  Manin,  J.  Latfa, 
Pinney,  Parke,  Douglass,  Love,  Huston,  Russell,  Symraes, 
Davie,  Ruiter,  R.  J.  Breckinridse,  Geo.  Morrison,  Laurie, 
McGinley,  Moody,  Sharon,  Buchanan,  J.  Williamson,  Mc- 
Kmley,  McCachran,  Q.uay,  M.  B.  Patterson,  Wynkoop, 
Hutchinson,  Linn,  Hill.  McKinney,  S.  Wilson,  Moore,  Mc- 
Knight,  Williamson,  Annan,  J.  B.  Patterson,  J.  U.  Gner, 
Smith,  Todd,  Barber,  Hudson,  Marr,  Shedden,  Galey, 

Mi 


282  TRIAL    OP 

KWers— Messrs.  Algeo,  Riclimond,  Cade,  Black,  Mooft") 
Woodward,  Symington,  Vanarsdalen,  Durfor,  Brown,  Stew- 
ard, Baylcss,  VV'hileford,  Buchanan,  Patterson,  Murphy, 
Wahn,  Penny,  Smith,  Jackson,  Evans,  James  Kerr,  Morris, 
Drurie,  Sterriit,  Coleman,  Rogers,  Jordan,  Fullerton,  Graham, 
Blair,  Woods,  McCoy.  Wm.  Irvin,  Cassat,  Gabby,  Agnew, 
Davis,  McGinley,  McAlister,  Humes,  Bayley,  John  Kerr, 
Gilleland,  Porter,  N.  Wilson,  Barr,  W.  Irvin,  J.  Wilson, 
MoorheJjd,  Siiedden,  Ferguson,  J.  B.  Boyd,  Clark,  J.  Grier, 
Laird,  Rankin,  Mr-pburn,  Sanderson. 

Non  Liguel — Elder,  Mr.  Stokes. 

Yeas  41.  Nay^  115. 

So  ihc,  proposition  to  refer  the  case  to  the  General 
Assembly  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Blythe  now  oliered  as  a  substitute  for  the  3(( 
resolutioti  ot"  tlio  coiinnittee,  two  resolutions  declar- 
ing, in  suiistance,  1.  That  Mr.  Birnes  ojj^ht  to  be 
suspended  IroHi  the  niinislry  until  he  shall  publicly 
retract  his  errors:  2.  That  the  Presbytery  be  direct- 
ed to  meet  and  finally  dispose  ofhis  case. 

Mr.  B.  mide  a  tew  remarks  goitig  to  shew  that 
when  t!ie  question  is  on  suspending  a  gospel  minister 
irora  his  olHce,  the  Presbytery  alone  had  jurisdiction 
of  it. 

The  MoDEHATOR  pronounced  the  resolutions  not 
to  be  in  order. 

Dr.  McDowell.  Is  not  the  committee's  resolution 
under  consideration  ?  and  is  it  not  ..-till  open  to  amend- 
ment? 

Mr.  Cassatt.  It  is  universally  admitted,  in  every 
legislative  body,  that  a  inotion  going  to  reverse  a 
decision  just  made  is  out  oi" order. 

MouKRA  roR.  The  ciiair  feels  a  delicacy  in  pressing 
his  decision.  He  wishes  the  house  to  decide  vvhether 
it  is  now  in  order  to  receive  the  substitute  proposed. 

Tho  hf»^l:^e,  by  a  general  expression,  seemed  to 
signily  its  judgment^  in  the  negative,  but,  as  the  re- 
portei\  believes,  no  formal  vote  was  taken. 

The  qjcslioii  now  recurring  on  the  third  resolution 
of  the  conimittee,  (viz  to  suspend  JVlr.  Barnes.) 

Dr.  M'DovvELL.  There  is  one  point  which  has  not, 
been  attended  to.  I  doubt  the  constitutional  right  oj 
Synod  to  pass  such  a  sentence.  Some  precedent.s 
have  been  referred  to;  but  the  ground  I  take  is  thar. 
the  highf.r  judicatories  have  no  original  jurisdiction, 
except  they  obtain  it  by  reference.  I  am  well  ac- 
quainteil  with  the  whole  hi.^tory  ol  the  case  of  the 
Cumberland  Presbytery.  The  propriety  of  the  act 
of  Synod  suspending  those  young  ministers  I'rom  their 
oifice  was  discussed  in  the  assembly  for  five  success- 
ive days,  under  as  high  a  state  ol  excitement  as  1 
ever  saw  in  that  body.  It  was  the  first  time  the 
question  was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  ;  and  it  was  de- 
clared that  the  Synod  had  no  right  to  pass  such  an 


MR.    BARNKS.  283 

aci.  [Marmure  ofcontradiction.j  I  assort  it:  and  I 
appeal  to  the  docuriients.  i  call  upon  l)rethrt|ii  to 
point  out  to  me  a  si'ii?!e  case,  in  the  history  ol"  our 
church,  in  which  a  Synod,  in  such  circumntances  as 
ours,  ever  deposed  or  euspended  a  eospel  minister. 
In  the  case  of  Davis,  in  1810,  the  Synod  of  the  Caro- 
linas  directed  the  Presbytery  to  call  him  to  account 
for  erroneous  doctrine ;  they  did  it,  and  deposed  him  ; 
Davis  appealed  to  Synod  from  their  sentence ;  and 
the  question  arose.  Have  the  Synod  of  ihc  Carolinas 
any  legal  hold  on  Mr.  Davis?  And  it  was  decided 
that  lliey  had.  Jiut  the  Assembly  reversed  that  de- 
cision, and  declared  tiiat  (he  Synod  had  not.  The  Ae- 
eenibly  directed  that  the  case  should  he  remanded  to 
the  Presbytery;  and  if  the  Presbytery  should  refuse 
to  act,  that  they  should  be  dissolved,  and  that  Davis 
should  be  put  in  the  Presbytery  v/hich  did  depose 
liim.  The  case  of  Dr.  Andrews  came  before  the  As- 
sembly twice.  He  liad  been  admonished  and  nfier- 
vvards  suspended  by  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabeth- 
town:  the  Synod  confirmed  his  suspension,  and  the 
Assembly  approved  the  act  ot  the  Synod.  Andrews 
sent  in  a  contumacious  letter ;  and  whatdid  the  As- 
sembly do  in  consequence  7  Did  it  depose  him  on  the 
spot  V  They  passed  a  vote  that  the  Presbytery  ought 
10  depose  him  ;  and  the  Presbytery  did  depose  him. 
Suppose  an  individual  had  applied  to  Presbytery  for 
ordination,  and,  being  reiused,  should  apj;eal  to  this 
Syrod.  Ii'  we,  on  a  hearing  of  the  case  were  of  opi- 
nion that  he  ought  to  have  been  ordained,  should  we, 
as  a  Syno.l,  forthwith  proceed  to  ordain  him  ?  No  : 
we  should  direct  the  Precbytery  to  ordain  liim,  or  put 
him  in  a  Presbytery  that  would. ^  But  it  we  have  no 
right  to  confer  the  ministerial  olfice,  have  we  a  right 
10  take  it  away  ?  Can  we  deprive  a  ninn  of  a  power 
we  cannot  confer  ?  It  was  once  contended  in  the  As- 
fieral)ly  that  that  body  possessed  and  could  exercise 
all  the  powers  of  all  inferior  judicitorics.  That  both 
a  Synod  and  the  General  Assembly  had  a  right  to  go 
into  any  of  our  churches  and  call  up  and  try  an  indi- 
vidual member  :  but  the  pretension  was  promptly  put 
down.  You  are  now  fast  movmg  toward  the  same 
point,  I  suppose  the  next  thing  will  be  for  Synod  to 
come  nito  my  church  and  arraign  some  of  my  elders 
ioT  heresy.  I  have  no  objection  that  this  case  should 
go  back  to  the  Presbytery  :  let  them  issue  it  in  a  con- 
stitutional way,  and  thus  save  a  vital  principle  in  our 
church  government. 

Dr.  Gkeen.  It  should  be  known  and  remembered 
that  a  General  Assembly  of  the  subsequent  year  on 
a  review  of  the  whole  case  of  the  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterians not  only  confirmed  what  the  Synod  of  Ken- 
tucky had  done,  but  highly  commended  it.  I  car* 
ehew,  ia  the  old  records  ot   the  church,  case  after 


234  TRIAL    OP 

case,  where  suspension  was  execated  by  a  Synod  : 
in  fact,  at  that  time,  it  was  seldom  performed  by  any 
other  court.  The  did'erence  between  a  body  which, 
like  a  Synod,  meets  in  corps,  and  one  which,  like  the 
Assembly,  meets  by  delegation,  is  too  obvious  to  be 
insisted  on.     [Cries  for  the  (juestion.] 

Mr.  Kennedy.  That  authority  which  inducted 
Mr.  Barnes  into  office,  has  alont-  the  right  to  take 
his  office  from  him.  [Strong  manifestations  of  impa- 
tience.] 

Mr.  Blythe.  I  am  as  desirous  that  this  case  should 
be  brought  to  a  fair  issue  as  any  man  can  be.  It  is 
only  because  I  believe  the  vital  interest.^  of  the  Sy- 
nod as  an  appellate  body  to  be  involved,  that  I  protest 
in  strong  terms  against  your  exercising  that  disci- 
pline which  belongs  to  the  primary  court  below. 
Whatever  court  has  original  jurisdiction  is  the  only 
court  which  can  pass  such  a  resolution  as  is  before 
us.  The  process  of  argument  in  the  preamble  of  the 
resolution,  *  *  * 

[Here  Mr.  Blythe  was  interrupted  by  a  scraping  of 
feet,  coughing,  cries  for  the  (question,  and  a  ceneral 
ronilision.  Dr.  Breckinridge  and  Mr.  R.  Breckin- 
ridge rose  to  order,  but  they  could  not  proceed.] 

The  questien  being  about  to  be  put. 

Dr.  McDowell  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays; 
which  were  ordered  by  the  house. 

Dr.  Neill  moved  a  recess.    Lost. 

The  question  was  at  length  taken  on  the  resolu- 
tion suspending  Mr  Barnes  from  office,  and  decided 
by  yeas  and  nays  as  follows  : 

^yes.— Green,  Latta,  McCalla,  Lawrence,  C.  Williamson, 
Winchester,  Parker,  Grier,  Harned,  M.  Cuen,  M.  William- 
son, Kennedy,  Blythe,  Maeklin,  Elliott,  Cuyler,  Gibson,  Mar- 
tin, J.  Latta,  Finney,  Park,  J.  N.  C.  Grier,  Douglas,  Love, 
Houston,  liussel,  Symmes,  Davis,  Davie,  Rutter,  R.  J. 
Breckinridse,  Morrison,  Moody,  Sharon,  J.  Williamson  Mc- 
Kiiiley,  Quay,  Creigh,  Patterson,  Wynkoop,  White,  J.  B. 
Patterson,  J.  H.  Grier,  Smith,  Tofld,  Barber,  Hudson,  Marr, 
Sheddan,  Galey,  Hutchinson,  Linn,  Hill,  McKinney,  Wilson, 
Moore,  McK  Williamson,  Annan,  (Mmisters.)  Algeo,  Rich- 
mond, Cade,  Black,  Moore,  Straiton,  Woodward,  Symmg- 
lon,  Vanarsdalen,  Durlor,  Brown,  Stew  ird,  Bayless,  While- 
ford,  Buchanan,  Patterson,  Murphy,  Wahn,  Penny,  Love, 
Jackson,  Evans,  Kerr,  Morris,  Drurie,  Sterret,  Coleman, 
Kodgers,  Jordan,  Kullerton,  Graham,  BJair,  Woods,  McCay^ 
Irvin,  Cassat,  Gabby,  A.^new,  Rlclivaine,  Davis,  McAllister, 
Humes,  Kerr,  Gilleland,  Porter,  Wilson,  Barr,  Irwin,  Wilson) 
Moorhead,  Shedden,  Ferauson,  Clark,  Grierj  Laird,  Rankin, 
Hepburn,  Sanderson,  (Elders) — H&. 

iS'oes.— McDowell,  Neil,  Belville,  Dinwiddle,  Adair,  Barr,. 
Musgrave,  Phelps,  Harrison,  Post,  Bosworth,  Graff,  Cath- 
cart,  Kennedy,  McKnight,  Dewiii,  Dickey,  Gilbert,  How, 
Hamill,  Jones,  Landis,  Knox,  Pickands,  Patterson,  McKim^ 
Campbell,  Brown,  Kennedy,  (Ministers.)  Graydou.  Boyi 
(Elders.)-31. 


MK.    BARNES.  28  5 

Non  Liquds,  Laurie,  Minister,  Stokes,  Elder— 2. 

Excused  from  votins^,  J.  Brackinridgo,  Wilson,  Walson, 
Olrastead,  (Ministers.)  Wallace,  Milligaii,  (ICIders.)— 6. 

Tlie  Moderator  announced  ihc  result  ol"  the  vote 
to  be: 

For  the  resolution,    116 

Against  it,  31 

Non-Liquets,  2 

Excused  from  votini^,  6 

So  the  Synod  adopted  the  following  resolution  : 

That  tub  said  Albekt  Barnes  de,  and  he  hereby  is, 
suspended  fbom  the  exercise  of  all  the  functions  proper 
to  the  gospel  ministry,  until  he  shall  retract  the  errors 
hereby  condemned,  and  give  sat1sf.\ct0ry  evidence  of 
eepentance. 

The  following  papur  waa  presented  by  the  subscri- 
bers, and  ordered  to  i?o  on  the  minutes,  viz.: 

The  undersigned,  who  were  c.\cused  from  voliiig,  and  tliose 
who  voted  as:aHist  the  adoption  of  iha  resolution  sus^pending 
the  Rev.  A.  Barnes,  beg  permission  to  have  tlie  follmving  ex- 
planation entered  on  the  minutes  of  Synod,  to  wit,  that  their 
object  was  to  procure  tlie  adoption  of  the  following  resolution 
which  was  olEJred  as  a  substitute,  viz. 

Resolved,  However,  from  a  dcsiie  to  avoid  even  the  ap- 
pearance of  injustice  or  rashness  on  the  part  of  this  Synod, 
that  in  this  state  of  the  busincts  we  refer  it  to  the  next  Gen- 
eral Asseuibly,  to  decide  what  judgment  should  be  rendered 
in  this  case;  and  respectfully  petition  them  to  pass  such  sen- 
tence as  fhey  may  deem  most  conducive  to  the  glory  of  God, 
and  the  purity  and  peice  of  the  church. 

John  McDowell,  John  Breckinridge, 

P.  E:.  Pnelp?:,  J.  C.  Watson, 

William  Neil,  J.  L.  Dinwiddie, 

R'jbert  B.  Belville,  Henry  R.  i\ilson, 

J.  M.  Olmstead,  Joseph  Ba'-r, 

G.  W.  Musgrave. 

At  the  request  of  Dr.  Laurie,  the  Synod  agreed  to 
I^ermit  the  following  note  in  explanation  of  his  vote 
on  the  minute  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes,  viz. 

That  he  had  intimated,  after  the  minute  was  hanued  in  by 
liim,  as  tile  Chairman  of  the  committee,  that  he  did  not  en- 
tirely agree  with  the  committee  in  the  third  resoluiion;  thai 
he  doubted  the  right  of  Synod  to  act  as  proposed  by  the  re- 
solution, and  did  not  recollect  any  precedents  for  so  acting, 
and  that  he  would  have  preferred  sending  dovcn  the  cise  to 
the  Piesbytery  to  which  Mr.  Barnes  might  belong,  with  iu- 
itructions  to  suspend  him  from  the  lunctions  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  if  he  should  not  renounce  his  errors— he  there- 
fore declined  voting  on  the  final  question. 

Synod  took  recess  for  an  hour. 

After  recess. 

The  Moderator  said  he  was  at  a  loss  to  know 
whether  any  official  form  was  requisite  in  order  to 
complete  the  act  of  Synod  resolving  on  the  suspen- 
24- 


2SG  TRIAL  or 

eioa.  There  was,  he  knew,  a  prescribed  fbrrn  fn  re- 
ference to  a  private  member,  but  lie  believed  there 
was  none  for  the  suspension  or  deposition  of  a  mi- 
nister. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge  moved  that  an  extract  from 
the  minutes  containing  the  judgment  of  Synod  be  put 
into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Barnes  by  the  ptaied  clerk  ol' 
Synod  ;  which  was  agreed  to. 

An  uppHeation  was  n)ade  by  several  mera.bei  a  who 
were  absent  at  the  taking  ol  the  last  vote  to  have 
their  names  entered  among  the  yeas  and  nays:  but 
Synod  refused  it,  as  irregular. 

The  Ibllovving  paper  was  presented  by  Mr.  Barnes, 
viz. 
To  the  Moderator  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  r 

The  undersigned  beg3  leave  respecifully  to  intorm  you,  and 
through  yoa  the  Synod  over  which  you  preside,  that  he  does 
hereby  appeal  from  your  decision,  passed  this  day,  whereby 
you  have  suspended  him  from  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of 
a  gospel  minister;  and  that  he  will  complain  «f  the  same  to 
the  next  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States.  The  reasons  of  the  complaint  and  appeal  he 
will  submit  to  you  withm  ten  days  from  the  rising  of  ib& 
Synod.  Alisebt  Barnes. 

York,  Not.  -1,  1S3S. 

Re- organization  of  Philadelphia  Prcsbijteries. 

The  Synod  then  proceeded  lo  take  up  the  subject 
of  a  re-organization  of  the  Presbyteries  of  Philadel- 
phia, when  the  Assembly's^  Presbytery  presented 
the  following  paper, viz: 

"Whereas  this  Presbytery  have  no  desire  to  oppose  the 
wishes  of  their  brethren  and  to  excite  uneasiness  by  continu- 
ing to  operate  without  geographical  limits  ;  and  whereas  it  is 
manifest  that  as  long  as  no  sucti  limits  are  distinctly  defined 
for  vis  we  shall  be  suspected  and  accused  of  overlapping  the 
territory  of  other  Presbyteries,  and  thus  give  occasion  for  jea- 
lousies and  suspicion  ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  this  Presbytery  pray  Synod  to  continue 
them  in  existence  agreeably  to  the  following  regulations,  viz. 

1.  All  the  ministers  and  churches  now  cnjnuected  with  us 
to  remain  in  their  present  relation  till  tliey  sign>ify  their  de- 
sire to  withdraw  from  it. 

2.  The  boundaries  of  the  Presbytery  to  be  as  follows,  viz  ; 
a  line  running  from  the  Delaware  along  Tenth  street  as  far 
Coates'  street,  and  thence  to  the  township  tine  road,  where  it 
intersects  Broad  street,  and  along  said  road  to  the  southern 
boundary  of  Montgonjery  county,  including  all  between  said 
lines  ana  the  river  Suhuylkill;  and  also  the  whole  of  the 
counties  of  Berks  and  Schuylkill,  and  as  much  of  Chester 
and  Philadelphia  counties  as  lies  north  of  thv  Conestoga  turn- 
pike road  from  Morgantowu  to  the  Lancaster  turnpike  road, 
and  along  this  latter  roud  to  the  Schuylkih  permanunt 
bridge."  A  true  extract, 

GeOBGE   Dt^FriELD, 

York,  A'or.  4,  1935.  Clerk  of  Presbyter j. 


MR.    BARNES.  287 

The  report  of  Dr.  Ciiyler  relative  to  the  arrange- 
ment and  boundaries  of  the  Presbyteries  of  Philadel- 
phia was  read  a  second  time. 

Mr.  DuFFiELD.  I  wish  to  state  on  behalf  of  the  As- 
eembly's  second  presbytery  that  we  have  no  wish  to 
be  the  occasion  of  jealousy  to  our  brethren.  We  are 
ready  to  shake  hands  with  them  and  meet  on  friendly 
terms.  We  have  no  eleciive  affinity  principle  lor 
which  we  wish  to  contend.  We  are  willing:  to  dis- 
pense with  at  least  one  bone  ol  contention  which  has 
produced  so  much  difficulty. 

Moderator.  In  what  light  is  this  paper,  submitted 
by  Mr.  Dulfield,  to  be  considered  ? 

Mr.  Gilbert.  I  move  that  the  prayer  of  the  peti- 
tioners be  granted. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge  now  moved  the  following : 

Rcsohed  \st.  That  the  Assembly's  2d  Presbytery  be,  and 
it  hereby  is,  dissolved,  and  that  all  the  churches,  ministers, 
licentiates,  and  candidates  belonging  to  it  are  hereby  directed 
to  make  application,  as  soon  as  possi  le,  for  admission  into 
the  Presbyteries  within  the  bounds  of  which  each  of  said 
churches,  ministers,  licentiates,  and  candidates  may  reside  or 
be  situated. 

Resolvedtd.  That  the  stated  clerk  of  the  Assembly's  2d 
Presbytery  is  hereby  directed  to  cause  all  the  papers  and  re- 
cords of  and  belonging  to  said  Presbyie/y,  to  be  placed  with- 
out delay  in  the  hands  of  the  stated  clerk  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  who  is  hereby  directed  to  cause  an  attested 
copy  of  said  records  to  be  made  out  and  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  stated  clerk  of  the  synodical  2d  Presbytery  at  the  ei- 
pense  of  the  last  named  Presbytery. 

Resolved  3d.  That  every  church,  minister,  licentiate,  and 
candidate  who  shall  not  apply  for  admission  to  the  Pres-by- 
tery  within  whose  bounds  eacn  may  reside  or  be  situated,  at 
or  before  the  next  semi-annual  meeting  of  said  Presbyteries  in 
the  spring  of  1936,  every  such  church,  minister,  licentiate  and 
candidate  is  hereby  declared  to  be,  de  facto,  cut  ofl'  frona  the 
communion  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  unless  prevented 
from  so  doing  by  some  providential  or  other  insurmountable 
obstacle. 

Dr.  Green.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  paper  which  must 
be  heard  before  this  subject  is  acted  on. 

Dr.  G.  then  handed  in  a-  report  on  the  vexed  sub- 
ject of  the  5th  church  in  Arch  street,  and  Dr.  Dar- 
rach. 

Dr.  Cathcart  moved  to  pcrstpone  the  consideration 
of  Mr.  Breckinridge's  resolution  for  the  purnoee  of 
considering  auother  plan  for  dividing  the  presbytery 
into  three :  which  he  read. 

Dr.  CuYLEK  opposed  the  postponement  because  he 
was  opposed  to  the  measure.  It  would  only  operate 
to  form  a  nest  that  would  be  filled  with  cockatrices. 
The  only  true  course  was  to  extirpate  the  Assem- 
bly's Second  Presbytery,  root  and  branch.    Dr.  Cuy- 


288  TRIAL   OF 

ler  then  withdrew  the  resolution  he  had  reported, 
with  u  view  to  consider  that  moved  by  Mr.  Brecliin- 
ridgK, 

The  question  being  on  Mr.  Breckinridge's  resolu- 
tion, 

Dr.  Cathcart  moved  his  plan. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Tho  plan  of  Mr.  Breckinridge  re- 
quires exdminalion.  Tliac  ju&ioH'ered  requircc!  none. 
There  is  a  vast  ditlen-noe  between  the  two.  I  can- 
not asri'ee  to  the  proposal  to  give  the  Assembly's  Se- 
cond Presbytery  geograpliicai  limits,  because  it  was 
Irom  the  beginning  unconsiituiiona  ly  organized,  and 
organized  lor  the  express  purpose  of  maihiaining  and 
propagating  the  doctrines  in  Mr.  Barne*'  book.  That 
was  the  he,;inniiig  ol  ihe  ali'air.  Mr.  Barnes  came  in 
amongst  us,  and  this  Presbytery  wasconslitutid  that 
he  might  be  comtortahle.  We  huve  now,  prayerlully 
and  believingly,  sat  in  judgment  upon  his  book,  and 
have  condemned  it:  and  now  that  Presbylery  comes 
and  in  humble  tone  i)rayB  to  be  saved  Irom  that  ex- 
tinction which  Dr.  Breckinridge  said  was  inevitable. 
Itisno.v,  however,  proposed  to  adopt  anew  plan, 
and  give  up  a  certain  district  ol' the  city  to  sail ;  to  do, 
in  fact,  wiiat  Cyrus  did  when  he  turned  the  Eu- 
phraies  into  the  plain  oi' Babylon,  and  let  that  whole 
region  be  filled  with  dragons  and  owls  and  satyrs. 
What  I  say  here  1  have  said  to  these  men  themselves. 
They  laugh,  and  say  "  we  like  you  M'Calla,  you  are 
an  honest  man;  we  know  whiM-e  to  hrid  you."  Let 
Synod  t:o  what  they  say,  and  theywill  find  it  the 
best  mode  to  protect  tlie  interests  of  sound  doctrane. 
Then  you  will  know  what  books  and  papers  ihey  are 
putting  forth,  and  all  they  are  doing.  1  speak  lioneet- 
ly  my  meaning.  I  have  no  hate  toward  any  of  these 
men:  bull  disbelieve  both  their  doctrine  ana  their 
discipline.  I  think  it  is  high  time  their  dissolution 
look  place.  But  it  seems  they  are  going  to  live  still :. 
yes,  and  in  a  far  worse  state  than  ever.  So  long  as 
they  remain  toother  in  one  mass,  you  know  how  to 
handle  them.  But  while  all  their  elemenis  of  mis- 
chief remain,  it  is  now  proposed  to  scatter  them 
among  all  the  other  presbyteries.  This  is  like  spread- 
ing poisoij.  So  long  as  it  is  all  in  one  bottle,  you 
have  it  under  control,  and  it  can  do  compatatively 
little  harm.  But  if,  to  prevent  your  servant  or  your 
son  from  getting  at  it,  you  swallow  il  yourself,  you 
are  not  wise.  1  am  now  going  to  differ  from  some  of 
the  greatest  and  wisest  of  this  body,  just  as  1  did 
once  before,  and  after  a  while  the  Synod  came  round 
to  my  ground.  There  must  be  a  forlorn  hope  some- 
where in  every  army  strongly  pressed,  and  as  long 
as  this  pulse  shall  continue  to  beat,  I  am  willing  to 
be  one  of  them,  tor  I  love  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  the 
Koals  he  bought  with  his  blood.    When  leay  that  the 


MR.    BAllSfES.  289 

errors  of  these  men  are  fundamental  errors,  you 
know  that  what  I  say  is  true,  according  to  my  con- 
science, iiccordinff  to  the  conlVssion  of  T.iirh,  and  ac- 
cording to  tlie  Bible.  To  keep  this  Presbytery  aninnff 
us  will  only  be  to  spread  all  this  poison.  When  they 
are  talking  among  themselves, kthey  comfort  one  an- 
other saying,  "  Well,  never  mind;  let  us  but  get  in 
among  them,  and  we'll  find  a  way  to  manage,  no  fear 
of  it."  At  first  Mr.  Skinner  was  the  only  man  of 
this  kidney  among  us.  He  preached  doctrines  lunda- 
mentally  erroneous:  and  it  was  then  said  it  would  be 
hard  to  get  any  body  who  would  undertake  to  prove 
the  charge.  I  oHered  to  take  that  task  on  my  shoul- 
ders; but  could  I  get  my  Presbytery  to  agree  to  it? 
No,  We  could  not  manage  him  :  but  he  soon  found 
the  way  to  manage  us,  and  we  soon  had  to  encoun- 
ter plans  upon  plans. 

Dr.  Neill.    Moderator,  is  all  this  in  order  ? 

Dr.  Cathcart.  Did  any  man  ever  hear  such  abuse 
before  allowed  in  a  church  court  ? 

Mr.  M'Calla.  I  had  no  intention  to  hurt  the 
nerves  of  Dr.  Neill. 

Moderator.  You  must  keep  within  the  limits  of 
order.    You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  It  is  in  vain  for  us  to  talk  of  ma- 
nagement. How  are  you  going  to  manage  an  ounce 
of  mercury  thrown  into  any  man's  system  all  at  once? 
You  would  find  it  hard  to  manage  a  quart  of  whis- 
key a  day.  It  would  take  a  whole  Presbytery,  if  they 
were  as  many  as  would  fill  Second  street  in  one  so- 
lemn row.  If  it  did  not  soon  intoxicate  them  1  know 
nothing  of  ecclesiastical  physiology.  No.  Let  their 
Presbytery  remain  as  it  is  at  present.  Let  them  go 
on  laying  their  eggs  in  every  nest :  that  is  the  only 
way  by  which  you  will  ever  get  men  to  vote  to  put 
them  out  altogether.  That  is  my  plan.  I  move  the 
indefinite  postponement  of  Mr.  Breckinridge's  reso- 
lution in  order  to  introduce  the  lollowing: 

Whereas  the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery  was  uncon- 
stitutionally formed  for  the  protection  and  propagation  of 
tliose  errors  which  this  synod  has  just  now  condemned, 

And  whereas  it  has  exercised  its  functions  unconslitution- 
ally  and  against  the  peace  and  edification  of  the  churches, 

And  whereas  it  has  refused  to  submit  its  records  lo  the  re- 
view and  control  of  this  synod, 

And  whereas  this  synod  has  already  pronounced  their  con- 
duct in  withholding  the  records  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Junkin 
against  Mr.  Barnes  to  be  obstinate,  vexatious,  unjust,  uncan- 
did,  contumacious,  and  grossly  disorderly  ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  said  second  presbytery  of  the  Genera] 
Assembly  be  considered,  and  they  are  hereby  considered,  no 
longer  under  our  watch  and  care  or  in  our  ecclesiastical  con- 
nexioi\  until  they  repent  of  their  error  and  coatumacv.  Mote> 
over, 


290  TRIAL    OF 

Resolved,  That  whenever  the  ministers  or  congregations,  or 
any  oltlieni,  shall  sue  for  admission  into  a  connection  to 
which  they  geograpliicaily  belong,  they  may  be  received  at 
the  discretion  of  the  Presbytery  to  which  they  apply. 

This  will  be  (i)llowiii£j  the  example  ofyour  youngr- 
est  dau-jhter.  This  wilj  Iree  us  from  wolvee  in  sheep's 
clothiiifj.  I  know  ol'  no  cable  that  will  hold  huiift-ry 
wolves.  Let  us  endeavor  to  do  what  the  conslilulion 
requires.  As  to  some  brethren  anions:  us  who  do  not 
a^ree  to  any  tilrcin--  measure,  we  know  there  always 
must  be  eonie  such  men.  There  are  some  men  who 
could  not  put  down  a  heresy  in  a  thousand  years.  It 
is  not  in  their  nature  to  loe  tlie  mark.  But  is  that 
any  reason  why  others  are  not  to  do  it?  Men  who 
now  plead  the  consiiLulion  in  opposition  to  any  and 
every  thitiir  tliat  lias  decision  in  it,  cared  noihing  lor 
the  constitution  when  the  Assembly's  second  Presby- 
tery was  Ibrmed,  in  the  very  teeih  of  the  constitution. 
Heretics  may  abound  as  they  will,  these  men  will 
never  take  any  step.  You  can  never  get  ihem  up  to 
a  measure  of  discipline.  Whoever  undertakes  the 
business  must  bear  the  whole  omis  opfrainU.  He 
must  make  up  his  mind  to  be  branded  with  all  I  he  ob- 
loquy. I  asrree  with  my  brother  (Mr.  Breckinridge) 
if  the  Presbytery  can't  be  dissolved,  let  us  put  it 
where  David  put  Saul's  arnior.  I  like  a  cannon  very 
well;  but  if  my  enemv  has  possession  ol'it,  and  every 
ball  strikes  intoniy  camp,  I  sliould  wish  the  cannon 
at  the  bottom  ol"  the  sea.  Just  so  our  consiiiution  is 
used  :  it  is  never  employed  ajrainst  a  heretic:  when- 
ever the  bretliren  point  and  lire,  it  is  always  against 
ourselves. 

Dr.  Cathcart.    Heard  ever  any  body  the  like? 

Mr.  McCalla.  I  really  think  men  ought  to  be  sat- 
isfied withaciiii^  for  three  years  ai>-ainst  the  consti- 
tution of  their  own  church,  and  acting  against  it  con- 
tumaciously. 

Moderator.  The  motion  for  indefinite  postpone- 
ment IS  not  in  order.  It  puts  a  whole  Presbytery  out 
of  the  House. 

The  question  was  now  put  on  Dr.  Calhcari's  ino- 
tion  to  postpone  and  consider  the  plan  moved  by  him, 
and  lost.  The  question  then  recurring  on  the  resolu- 
tions moved  by  Mr.  R.  Breckinridge. 

Dr.  Green  demanded  a  division  of  the  question: 
that  it  might  first  be  taken  on  dissolving  the  second 
Presbytery. 

Dr.  Breckinridge.  Do  we  do  this  with  the  under- 
standing that  the  other  two  Presbyteries  of  Philadel- 
phia are  to  be  retained  ? 

MoEERATOR.  That  is  the  understanding  of  the 
Chair. 

Mr.  J.  Patterson.  You  are  now  about  to  dissolve 
the  Assembly's  second  Presbytery  for  the  mischieff 


MR.    BARNES. 


291 


it  has  done.  Before  the  resolution  is  adopted  I  wish 
at  least  to  disabuse  myself.  [Mr.  P.  here  went  into  a 
detailed  hi!?tory  of  the  Fairinount  cluirch,  and  the 
agency  lie.  had  had  in  reference  to  that  whole  afl'air  ;  ■ 
contending  that  the  Presbytery  i  ad  done  nothing  in 
relation  to  it  oi  which  they  had  the  least  reason  to  be 
ashamed.)  Dr.  iVIcDowell,  he  knew,  was  sore,  be- 
cause alter  they  had  rescued  it  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
sheriti',  iher  did  not  put  it  again  under  his  care.  But 
said  iVIr.  P.  the  child  gasped  and  died  in  his  hands, 
though  his  people  are  wealthy,  and  abundantly  able 
to  have  built  the  church  and  bought  it  over  and  over. 
Would  it  liave  been  reasonable  to  put  it  back  into  the 
same  keeping,  that  it  might  die  a  second  time?  What 
blame  attaches  to  our  conduct  in  thus  saving  a 
church  out  of  the  hands  of  the  sheritf.  And  are  iden- 
tlemen  going  to  vote,  wholesale,  to  saiash  our  Pres- 
bytery at  a  blow,  for  this  ?  I  ilefy  any  one  to  point  out 
any  act  of  disorder  we  h  ive  been  guilty  of,  uidfss  it 
is  the  orgatiiz  ition  o(  the  central  churcrt  in  the  North 
Liberties:  and  1  believe  the  Synod  know  enough 
about  that. 

Mr.  Davib.  By  this  act  you  open  the  door  for  an 
appeal :  and  if  the  Presbytery  do  not  enter  it,  1  shall 
say  they  are  men  of  peace:  that's  all.  According  to 
the  sec  )nd  brancli  of  the  resolution,  tiiese  ministers 
are  individually  to  seek  admission  into  another  Pres- 
bytery by  subiuiiting  to  an  examination.  To  whom, 
I  ask,  are  they  to  be  responsible  until  they  do  this? 
Are  they  to  bo  connected  with  no  Presbytery?  Are 
they  to  stand  nlone?  Is  this  Presbyterian?  To 
throw  a  hole  Presbytery  out  of  the  bounds  of  all 
respons^ibility  .' 

Mr.  MCalla.  The  consequence  is  known  to  be 
that  these  men  will  become  disseminated  through  all 
the  presbyteries.  I  hope  that  all  those  who  voted 
a2:ainst  the  errors  of  Mr.  Barnes  will  remember  that 
if  this  resolution  shall  be  adopted,  those  errors  will 
be  speed dy  and  ell'ectuaily  spread  in  all  directions 
among  us.  Though  I  am  said  to  be  good  at  fighting, 
yet  I  am  disposed  to  peace. 

Dr.  Green  now  withdrew  his  motion  for  a  division 
of  the  qiesiion. 

The  question  being  then  on  the  adoption  of  Mr. 
Breckinridgd's  resolutions  entire, 

Mr.  M'Cai^la  moved  a  postponement  with  a  view 
to  take  up  the  substitute  he  had  liimselfotTered. 

This  moiion  prevailed:  and  the  resolution  having 
been  read  agnin, 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge  rose  to  oppose  it.  I  consider 
this  as  a  disorgatnzing  proposition.  [  cannot  go  into 
a  discussion  of  it:  I  leel  my  frame  exhausted,  and 
my  heart  too.  I  had  determined  to  go  hon)e  in  si- 
lence :  but  I  cannot  let  this  pass  without  one  elfort 


292 


TRIAL    OF 


against  it.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  error  c( 
the  General  Assembly  in  constituiin*  their  Second 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  and  1  thought  at  the  time 
that  it  was  improper,  because  they  had  no  constitu- 
tional ri«^ht  to  do  such  an  act,  and  because  the  ob- 
jects in  view  appeared  to  me  to  be  wrong,  yet  now 
that  the  Presbytery  has  been  constituted  and  has 
been  recognizid  by  this  synod  as  an  existing  ecclesi- 
astical body,  and  its  members  stand  reciiin ecclesia, 
I  think  we  have  no  right  to  put  it  out  of  the  church 
without  trying  its  members  lor  irregularities  of  con- 
duct. It  is  an  ex  post  facto  proceedmg,  and  we  have 
no  right  to  adopt  any  such  course.  The  men  of  that 
Presbytery  are  not  before  us  either  on  corporate 
trial,  or  on  personal  trial.  We  are  now  engaged  in 
a  re-organization  of  our  presbyteries  ;  but  this  is  not 
organization:  it  is  excision.  The  assembly  ordered 
us  to  arrange  the  presbyteries,  and  I  am  in  favor  of 
it,  but  I^  ani  for  having  Market-street  the  dividing 
line.  If  we  have  poison  in  a  bottle,  I  am  not  for 
breaking  the  bottle. 

Moderator.  The  chair  has  serious  doubts  whe- 
ther tb^s  resolution  is  in  order.  It  cuts  oH'  a  whole 
Presbytery  without  a  trial.  If  I  am  wrong,  I  wish 
pome  member  woald  appeal  and  let  the  house  de- 
cide it. 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.    I  will  take  an  appeal. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Dr.  Breckinridge  made  use  of 
words  which  I  do  not  think  were  for  edification. 
This  resolutioi!  is  intended  to  do  just  what  was  done 
in  the  Synod  of  Kentucky.  The  Cumberland  Pres- 
bytery was  declared  to  be  no  longer  under  their 
watch  and  care  as  Presbyterian  ministers;  and  this 
on  the  ground  of  the  very  heresy  we  have  condemn- 
edin  the  person  of  Mr.  Barnes. 

Moderator.  The  members  ol  that  Presbytery 
liave  never  been  arraigned  for  heresy.  They  have 
been  chargei  :  i:h  contumacy  :  but  never  with  here- 
sy.   I  cannot  think  the  resolution  in  order. 

The  question  being  now  put  on  Mr.  Breckinridge's 
appeal,  the  decision  of  the  chair  was  sustained,  and 
Mr.  McCalla's  resolution  was  declared  out  of  order. 

The  question  then  recurring  on  Mr.  R.  Breckin- 
ridsre's  resolution, 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge  rose  in  its  support.  If,  said 
he,  the  Synod  approves  of  the  proposed  dissolution  of 
the  2d  Presbytery,  1  have  another  resolution  to  oH'er, 
showing  what  ought  to  be  done  with  the  Presbyteri- 
al  books  :  and  what  with  the  members  of  that  Pres- 
bytery il  the}  sliall  contumaciously  refuse  to  deliver 
up  their  records.  An  elective  affinity  body  is  one 
wiiich  has  no  limits ;  and  such  a  body  is  against  the 
constitution.  The  assembly  declared  this  in  the  min- 
ute adopted  by  them  touching  the  memorial  accom- 


MR.    BARNES.  203 

panying  the  Act  and  Teetimonv ;  and  their  act  di- 
rects, in  substance,  that  we  ehall  dissolve  that  Pres- 
bytery. The  first  resolution  I  have  had  the  honor  to 
propose  goes  to  dissolve  the  Presbytery  :  the  third 
j)rovide8  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  members  com- 
no.sin^  it.  You  may  make  Market-street  the  dividing 
line,  ii'you  like — ancl  let  the  existin'?  Presbytery  exist 
fitill,  uulefrS  some  harm  will  result  from  such  an  ar- 
rangement. But  I  hold  it  the  solemn  duty  of  the  Sy- 
nod to  diminish  the  number  of  its  Presbyteries.  It 
was  one  of  the  best  things  this  Synod  ever  did  when 
it  refu.sed  to  consent  to  its  own  dismemberment.  We 
were  divided  by  a  coup  de  main  in  the  assembly : 
and  were  it  lawful  I  could  tell  some' stories  of  what 
passed  between  a  brother  (Mr.  J.  Patterson)  and  my  - 
self  on  that  occasion, 

[Moderator.    Tliat  will  not  be  in  order.] 

The  plan  of  Dr.  Cathcart  goes  to  I'orce  these 
members  into  other  Presbyteries  without  their  con- 
sent. But  this  resolution  provides  that  before  ad- 
mission into  other  Presbyteries,  these  gentlemen 
shall  submit,  if  required,  to  an  examination  as  to 
their  religious  beliel".  If  they  were  to  apply  to  my 
Presbytery,  I  should  certainly  insist  upon  such  ex- 
amination with  respect  to  a  great  majority  of  the 
members  of  that  Pretbylery ;  and  I  believe  that  they 
would  not  be  admitted  into  seme  of  cur  Presbyteries. 
There  is  no  way  of  getting  into  the  Presbyterian 
church  but  through  one  of  its  Presbyteries ;  and 
though  we  have  a  right  to  Ibrce  these  men  into  a 
Presbytery,  yet  I  think  this  is  the  better  way.  I  wish 
them  to  go  lawl'ully  into  some  Presbytery.  They  will 
have,  indeed,  to  submit  to  an  examination:  6ut  if 
they  feel  as  1  do,  instead  of  objecting  to  this,  they  will 
desire  it  and  insist  upon  it.  We  have  long  laid  a  rule 
upon  the  Baltimore  Presbytery,  tliat  an  applicant 
must  be  examined  before  he  is  received,  if  any  one 
member  of  the  Presbytery  desires  it.  The  resolution 
provides  that  if  they  do  not  apply  to  any  Presbytery 
fcr  admission  before  a  definite  time,  they  shall  be 
considered  as  no  longer  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 

The  question  was  now  put  on  the  first  resolution 
and  it  was  carried. 

The  2d  resolution  was  then  read  and  it  also  was 
agreed  to. 

The  third  resolution  was  then  read,  and  the  ques- 
tion being  on  this  resolution 

Mr.  Gilbert.  Can  you  dismiss  a  member  from 
one  Presbytery  and  not  send  him  to  another  ?  Would 
that  be  Presbyterian? 

Mr.  R.  Breckinridge.  A  Presbytery  cannot  con- 
stitutionally dissolve  itself.  A  man  may,  indeed,  cut 
his  own  throat,  and  a  certain  church  in  Baltimore 
juet  and  dissolved  itself :  but  the  act  was  not  regular. 
25 


294  TRIAL   OF 

Here  Mr.  B.  went  into  a  history  of  the  case  of  Mr. 
Duncan  and  argued  tiiat  what  was  done  in  relation 
to  one  might  as  lawl'ully  be  done  in  regard  to  an- 
other.] 

Dr.  J.  Breckinridge.  I  doubt  if  a  fair  answer  has 
been  given.  Dr.  B.  hf  re  entered  into  a  larther  ac- 
count of  the  case  ol"  Mr.  Duncan,  and  insisted  that 
what  was  done  in  that  instance  was  quite  a  ditferent 
matter  iVpni  dissolving  a  Presbytery  and  leaving  all 
its  menil)ers  at  loose  ends  belonging  to  nobody,  un- 
certain whether  they  were  under  the  care  of  any 
Synod  and  in  fact  not  Presbyterians.  This  was 
putting  mm  out  ol'  the  churcii  not  by  the  door,  but 
pusliing  them  out  of  the  window. 

Moderator.  These  remarks  relate  to  the  first 
resolution  and  tlie  brother  will  remember  that  that 
resolution  has  been  adopted. 

Dr.  J.  BREOKi.NRmGE.    I  mourn  over  it. 

The  quesLion  was  now  put  upon  the  resolution  and 
it  was  carried. 

The  Moderator  declared  that  all  other  business  in 
reference  to  the  division  of  the  Presbytery  fell  as 
of  course  by  the  adojMion  of  these  resolutions. 

Mr.  Mu.sgrave  read  an  explanation  of  his  vote 
which  at  his  motion  was  ordered  to  be  entered  on 
the  minutes. 

Dr.  Ely  from  the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery 
presented  the  following  appeal  and  complaint. 

Whereas  the  Book  of  Discipline  Chap.  Ill,  arucle  1,  of  the 
preamble  decides  that  "  every  hind  of  decision  which  is  form- 
ed in  any  church  judicatory,  except  the  highest,  is  subject  to 
the  review  of  a  superior  judicatory,  and  may  be  earned  be- 
fore it  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  four  following  ways,  viz. 
1  Gf.neral  Review  2  Reference  3  Appeal  and  4  Complaint: 
And  whereas  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  and  this  Presbytery 
have  now  become  original  parties  in  relation  to  the  decision 
of  the  Synod  by  which  they  have  attempted  to  dissolve  the 
Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia;  and  of  which  we  hereby 
complain : 

Therefore  Resolved,  that  this  Presbytery  will  and  hereby 
does  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly  to  meet  in  Pittsburg  in 
May  next,  against  the  aforesaid  decision  :  that  the  Assembly 
may  decider,  when  they  have  heard  this  appeal,  whether  we 
shall  submit  to  that  decision  or  not. 

Our  reasons  for  this  appeal  from  thatdecision  of  which  we 
hereby  complain,  to  the  next  Assembly,  are  ths  following. 

1.  The  attempt  to  dissolve  this  Presbytery  under  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  we  regard  as  the  continued  resist- 
ance of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  to  the  authority  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  former  years,  by  which  this  Presbytery 
has  been  constituted  and  continued. 

2.  The  Presbytery  judge  that  the  dissolution  of  the  Second 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  at  the  present  time,  and  by  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphin,  would  not  conduce  to  the  peace  and 
edificadon  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  U.  Slates,  but 
on  the  contrary,  would  be  highly  prejudicial  to  the  best  iu- 
tfirests  of  religion. 


MR.    BARNES  295 

3.  The  Presbytery  think  the  manner  of  the  dissolution 
wholly  unprcceacnted  and  iinconstiiutionnl. 

By  order  of  the  Presbytery, 

EzBA  Stiles  Ely,  Committee. 

York,  Pa.  Nov.  4, 1S35. 

He  observed  that  in  all  probability  it  was  the  last 
time  that  he  should  ever  trouble  the  Synod,  or  have 
an  opportunity  ol'epeaking  to  Presbyters  with  whom 
lor  twrenty  years  he  had  acted  with  great  cordiality. 
With  this  paper,  the  Presbytery  made  their  bow,  for 
it  seemed  to  him  that  the  Synod  now  regarded  them 
as  stragglers,  and  so  he  suppos-ed  they  were  to  re- 
main, until  those  who  were  the  superiors  alike  of 
Synod  and  Presbytery,  should  decide  what  was  to  be 
their  standing. 

The  Synod  now  took  a  recess. 

Mr.  Winchester  moved  that  when  Synod  adjourn 
it,  adjourn  to  meet  at  Carlisle  on  the  second  Wed- 
nesday of  February,  but  ailer  some  conversation  this 
motion  was  rejected. 

Dr.  Lauhie  called  up  the  report  of  the  committee 
on  dissolving  the  Presbytery  of  the  District  of  Co- 
liimbia,  and  uniting  its  members  with  the  Presbytery 
of  Baltimore,  which  after  a  brief  o{)position  by  I)r.  L. 
wsvs  on  motion  of  Dr.  Cuyler  indefinitely  postponed. 

Synod  took  up  a  memorial  from  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle,  complaining  of  the  Presbytery  of  Wilmington  for  its 
organization  of  a  church  within  its  bounds,  and  in  the  midst 
(as  alleged)  of  the  congregation  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Russel.  Af- 
ter a  desultory  discussion,  it  resolved  that  the  Presbytery  of 
Wilmington  be  required  to  lay  on  the  table  of  Synod  forth- 
with so  much  of  their  records  as  relate  to  the  above  mention- 
ed case.  To  the  above  order  of  Synod,  the  Presbytery  of 
Wilmington  made  the  following  reply,  viz  : 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  Wilmington,  at  York, 
Penn.  Oct.  29!h,  1835,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  the  Stated  Clerk  of  this  Presbytery  be  not 
allowed  to  deliver  the  records  or  papers  belonging  to  this 
Presbytery  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  because,  in  our 
judgment,  said  Synod  has  not  and  could  not  have  any  juris- 
diction over  this  Presbytery  prior  to  the  23th  day  of  October, 
1835. 

True  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Wil- 
mington. Attest,  E.  W.  Gilbert,  Stated  Clerk. 

York,  Oct.  23</i,  1835. 

Whereupon  it  was  Resolved,  That  the  above  plea  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  Synod  be  considered  as  no  bar  to  proceed- 
ing in  this  case. 

Further  Resolved,  That  the  Presbytery  of  Wilmington  be 
and  it  hereby  is  censured  for  contumacy  in  withholding  its 
records. 

And  further  Resolved,  That  the  act  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Wilmington,  in  organizing  a  church  within  the  bounds  of  a 
church  already  existing  and  connecttd  with  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Castle,  was  disorderly  and  an  unkind  interference, 


296  TRIAL    OF    MR.    BARNES. 

and  that  the  church  thus  formed  be,  and  it  hereby  is  dJB^ 
solved. 

Synod  next  took  up  a  memorial  from  the  Carlisle  Presby- 
tery, complaining  of  the  same  Presbytery  of  Wilmington  for 
its  course  in  receiving  und  licetising  Mr.  J.  M.  McKim,  a  can- 
didate under  the  cnre  of  Carlisle  Presbytery,  who  had  not 
regularly  been  dismissed  from  under  its  care,  and  whose  tri- 
als for  licensure,  presented  to  that  Presbytery,  had  not  beea 
sustained. 

After  a  very  desultory  discursion,  attended  occasionally 
with  some  warmth,  it  was  finally 

Rcscltcil,  That  the  conduct  of  the  Wilmington  Presbytery, 
in  the  cnse  of  Mr.  iVIcKiai,  was  uucoustiiutional  and  grossly 
disorderly. 

Further  JRcsolrcd,  That  the  Presbytery  of  Wilmington  be, 
and  it  hereby  is  dissolved,  and  ilin  ministers,  licentiates,  can- 
didates and  churches  being  and  residing  on  the  north  side  of 
the  New  Castle  and  Freiichtown  Rail  Road,  including  the 
church  in  New  Casile,  be  transferrel  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Castle,  and  all  tlic  ministers,  licentiates,  candidates  and 
churches,  being  and  rf  siding  on  tlii>  sciiih  side  ot  said  line, 
be  trans  erred  to  the  Presbytery  of  Lewes;  and  that  the  Sla- 
ted Citik  of  the  sail  Pre-bytery  of  Wilmington  be  directed 
to  transfer  the  records  and  all  other  documents  belonging  to 
said  Presbytery,  to  the  Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Casile. 

Mr.  How  and  Mr.  Jones  gav3  notice  of  their  intention  to 
complain  of  ir.e  disposition  thus  made  of  the  churches  under 
their  care. 

Dr.  EitECKiNniDGE  made  a  report  on  the  state  of 
religion,  vvhicli  vvus  adopted. 

The  minutes  were  comtuitied  to  the  Moderator  for 
publication. 

Mr.  H.  R.  Wilson,  Stated  Clerk  of  Synod,  report- 
ed that  he  iiad  put  into  the  lianils  of  Mr.  Bernes,  an 
attested  copy  of  the  minute  of  Synod  containing  the 
sentence  of  Mr.  Barnes's  suspension. 

An  overture  on  lire  subject  ol  foreign  missioui?  was 
next  considered  and  adopted,  with  some  modifica- 
tions. 

Mr.  WiNcnESTER  reported  a  minute  on  the  memo- 
rial of  the  P.-esbytery  of  Carlisle,  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
McKim,  which  was  tidopted. 

The  Synod  then  adjourned  to  meet  in  the  city  ol 
Philadelphia,  in  the  Central  Presbyterian  Church,  on 
the  last  Wednesday  of  October  next,  at  10  o'clock, 
A.  M.,  and  the  sittinj?  was  closed  with  prayer. 


APPENDIX. 


DEFEXCE  OF  ALBERT  BARIVES* 


Defence  of  Albert  fiarnefi  ao;ainst  the  charges  ofthi 
Jttec.  George  Junkin,  D.  I).,  President  of  Lafay- 
ette College ;  tried  before  the  Second  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  June  30 — July  8,  1835. 


The  char^ea  here  alleged  are  ten  in  number,  for 
erroneous  doctrines  tauoflit  and  published  in  the 
'Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.'  Before  pro- 
ceeding to  answer  them  at  length,  it  may  be  proper 
to  advert  to  three  remarkable  circumstances  in  re- 
gard to  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  brought. 

The  first  is,  that  the  prosecutor  and  the  accused 
belong  to  ditierent  presbyteries,  and  to  different  sy- 
nods. In  my  own  presbytery  1  was  in  good  standing, 
and  enjoying,  so  far  as  I  had,  or  still  have  any  reason 
to  suppose,  the  confidence  of  my  co-presbyters.  I 
was  pursuing  peacefully  the  duties  of  a  most  arduous 
pastoral  charge,  requiring  all  my  time  and  strengtli; 
and  indeed  exliausting  the  vigor  of  my  life,  and  rapid- 
ly undermining  my  constitulion  hy  arduous  and  in- 
cessant duties.  I  was  surrounded  by  a  church  per- 
fectly united  and  harmonious;  having  confidence,  so 
lar  as  I  knew,  in  my  ministry,  my  character,  and  my 
orthodoxy.  It  is  not  k;iovvn  that  the  voice  of  com- 
plaint had  been  heard  among  the  people  of  my  own 
charge  of  any  dereliction  Irom  the  doctrines  which 
had  been  taught  in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States,  for  a  period  of  one  hundred  and 
thirty  years.  Charges  similar  to  these  had  been  al- 
leged against  me — not  indeed  in  a  formal  and  regular 
manner,  but  in  an  irregular  manner  by  the  Presbyte- 
ry of  Philadelphia.  Those  accusations  had  been  laid 
before  the  General  Assembly,  and  the  highest  judica- 
ture of  the  Presbyterian  church  had  fully  acquitted 
me  of  them.  The  agitations  of  that  time  had  died 
somewhat  away.  I  was  permitted  to  return  to  my 
labor  with  the  hope  that  I  might  pursue  it  in  peace. 
1 


*  APPENDIX. 

These  charges  are  eubstrintially  of  the  same  na- 
ture, and  are  not  pretended  to  be  difierent  by  the 
prosecutor  himself.  In  the  midst  of  mv  labors,  and 
my  phins  for  the  welfare  of  my  pastoral  charge,  my 
attention  has  been  arrested,  and  a  demand  made  on 
my  time  and  patience  and  strength  to  answer  again 
substantially  the  same  accusations.  They  are  brought 
by  a  member  of  anotiier  prvsbytery,  and  another  sy- 
nod. To  Dr.  Jiiiikin  I  had  done  no  injury;  I  had  made 
no  allusion.  His  opinions  1  had  not  attacked  ;  nor  in 
the  book  an  which  tliese  charges  are  based,  have  I 
made  the  remotest  allusion  to  him,  or  his  doctrines. 
I  admit  indeed  the  right  of  any  minister  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  to  bring  charges  of  heresy,  or  immo- 
rality aeainst  any  other  minister;  bin  the  question 
instinciively  arises  in  looking  at  the  circumstances  ot 
this  case  :  '  Wliy  should  IJr.  Junkin  feel  himself  call- 
ed on  to  stand  forth  as  the  defender  of  orthodoxy, 
and  as  the  accuser  of  his  brethren  ?  Why  shoulJ  the 
president  of  a  literary  institution  feel  himself  called 
on  to  bring  solemn  and  grave  charges  of  error  against 
a  pastor  in  another  presbytery  ?  Why  should  he  feel 
it  to  be  his  duty  to  excite  suspicion,  and  disturb  the 
peace  of  a  church  of  Christ,  and  utiseitle  their  confi- 
dence in  their  pastor,  and  allege  charges  fitted,  and 
designed  doubtless, to  depose  him  from  the  ministry — 
to  blast  his  good  name,  and  arrest  his  schemes  ot  la- 
bor, and  put  a  period  to  the  little  good  which  he 
might  be  doing?  Why  should  he  be  the  man  to  tear 
open  old  wounds  scarcely  healed,  and  raise  again  the 
cry  ot  alarming  heresy,  fast  dying  away,  and  throw 
the  christian  community  again  into  agitation.  There 
inay  possibly  be  such  an  eminence  of  talent,  learning, 
piety,  eloquence,  as  tOionstilute  a  man  a  guardian  of 
the  orthodoxy  and  the  peace  of  the  churches.  But  it 
is  a  very  material  question  whether  it  is  wise  for  a 
man  to  put  tbrtli  any  thing  which  can  be  construed 
into  any  such  claim  of  ecclesiastical  pre-eminence 
and  guardianshiu.  On  a/iy  consideration  of  this  sub- 
ject, it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  the  president  of  Lafay- 
ette college  should  have  felt  himself  called  on  to  al- 
lege these  charges. 

A  second  circumstance  that  is  remarkable  is,  the 
manner  in  which  these  charges  have  been  brought. 
Our  Savior  h;ts  laid  down  a  rule  which  it  is  conceiv- 
ed is  equally  i  bli^Mtory  on  all  liis  followers,  and  in  all 
cases  whether  i  ertainiiig  to  public  tr  private  trans- 
actions. Mat.  xviii,  15:  "Moreover  il  thy  brother 
shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault 
between  thee  and  him  alone  :  if  he  shall  hear  thee, 
thou  hast  gaini'd  thy  brother.''  That  this  direction 
is  appUcable  to  all  the  cases  ofoffence  which  may  oc- 
cur in  the  church  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt. 


APPENDIX.  3 

Charores  can  be  brought  against  a  man  in  no  other 
way  tlian  as  they  are  Kiii)|josed  to  constitute  some 
offence  or  crime,  either  of  a  j)uhlic  or  private  nature. 
They  can  be  brought  by  itii  iiidiviihial  only  us  that  in- 
dividual has  been  injured  or  offended.  Iltlie  deed  be 
oi'a  public  nature, it  is  an  otl'ence  against  the  prosecu- 
tor only  as  a  part  of  the  public,  and  he  can  be  consid- 
ered as  injured  only  as  a  part  of  the  public.  If  on  thie 
grounil  tlieretbre  charges  are  brought, the  rule  of  the 
Savior  should  be  regarded  as  applicable  and  binding. 
It  13  equally  manliest  that  our  Savior  mentions  no 
case  where  any  other  course  would  be  proper.  He 
speaks  of  no  public  offence  where  this  course  would 
not  be  demanded-  He  specifies  no  instance  ol  an  of- 
i'ence  where  this  course  might  be  dispensed  with. 
Had  there  been  any  such  cases,  they  would  have 
been  referred  to  ;  and  he  would  not  have  concealed 
the  instance  where  an  otience  might  have  existed  in 
which  it  was  not  proper  or  necessary  for  the  brother 
"  to  go  and  tell  him  his  fault"  alone.  Every  instance, 
therefore,  of  oH'ence  comes  under  this  rule  of  the 
New  Testament. 

The  wisdom  of  the  rule  is  manifest.  No  small  part 
of  the  trials  for  injury,  for  heresy,  for  error,  for  oH'en 
ces  of  any  kind  in  the  church,  would  be  avoided  by 
the  observance  ol  this  simple  direction.  A  frank  and 
friendly  intercourse  between  brethren,  vvould  often 
show  them  that  there  was  no  ground  of  ofi'ence  ;  that 
no  crime  had  been  intended  or  committed  ;  and  that 
all  that  was  necessary  was  a  simple  statement  of 
the  facts  as  they  occurred,  and  of  the  intention  which 
led  to  them.  This  is  as  certainly  true  of  doctrines  as 
of  alleged  moral  oH'ences-  In  most  cases  of  supposed 
error,  all  the  difficulty  can  be  removed  by  a  frank  and 
tree  interchange  of  sentiments. 

Ifit  be  alleged  that  a  book  is  an  exception  to  these 
remarks,  that  it  is  public,  and  the  oli'ence  spread 
abroad,  I  reply  that  the  Savior  made  no  exception  in 
any  such  case;  nor  should  he  have  done.  A  book 
comes  under  the  same  general  direction  as  offences 
of  any  kind.  If  a  man  feels  that  he  is  injured  by  a 
book  it  must  be  either  as  one  of  the  public,  because 
the  book  holds  erroneous  sentiments,  or  that  he  is 
particularly  intended  by  slanderous  or  other  inju- 
rious words ;  and  in  either  case  if  he  suppposes  that 
an  injury  is  done  so  as  to  demand  his  attention,  the 
rule  of  the  Savior  is  applicable.  Further,  there  is 
this  dilierence  in  the  case  of  a  book  from  other  forms 
of" public  or  private  injury.  A  book  can  be  corrected. 
Tne  correction  can  How  in  the  same  channel,  and  it 
canbecomeapei-mancnt  and  wide-spread  attestation 
ol  the  author  of  his  conviction  of  his  error,  and  he 
may  thus  do  more  to  repair  an  injury  than  in  the  case 


4  APPENDIX. 

of  any  other  moJe  of  od'ence.  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  ihe  Ibct  that  tlie  alleged  injury  was  done  in  a 
book,  does  not  remove  it  from  the  operation  of  the 
Savior's  ride. 

Now  1  iiave  cause  to  comi)lain  that  this  plain  and 
obvious  rule  of  Jesus  Christ  was  not  regarded  by  Dr. 
Junkin  in  regard  to  a  miriisier  in  good  standing.  By 
bringing  tliese  charges,  Ur.  J.  alleges,  impliedly,  that 
he  has  been  injured,  either  personally,  or  as  one  of 
Ihe  Christian  community.  If  not  mjured  in  one  of 
these  senses,  there  could  have  been  no  justifiable  pre- 
tence for  bringing  them,  //"injured,  he  was  bound  to 
go  ami  tell  his  fault  to  the  oli'ending  brother,  and  en- 
deavor to  recover  him  from  his  errors.  But  this  was 
not  done.  No  interview  was  sought.  No  exjjlanation 
was  asked.  No  fraternal  admonition  was  addressed 
suggesting  error,  and  injury  to  the  cause  of  truth. 
Nothing  was  done  until  the  charges  were  fully  made 
out,  and  ready  to  be  prosecuted;  and  all  that  was 
then  done  was  a  leUer  apprising  me  of  ihal  fact. 
This  letter  is  in  the  following  words. 

Lafayette  College,  March  16th,  1835. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, —In  yonr  Notes  on  the  Episde  to  the 
Romans,  there  are  doctrines  set  forth,  which,  in  nay  humble 
opinion,  arc  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  and  to  the  word  of  God. 

It  also  appears  to  me,  and  has  long  so  appealed,  that  these,, 
nnd  certain  affiliated  doctrines,  hive  been  the  chief  causes  of 
the  unhappy  distractions  over  which  we  all  mourn. 

A  third  opinion,  operating  to  the  production  of  this  commu- 
nication, is,  that  peace  and  union  in  evangelical  eiibrt,  cannot 
take  place,  so  long  as  these  important  doctrinal  points  remaii> 
unsettled;  and  that,  therefore,  all  the  friends  of  such  union 
and  peace  ought  to  desire  their  final  adjustment  by  ihe  proper 
judicatories  of  the  church.  It  is  certainly  true  that  many 
have  wished  to  see  theiii  brought  up,  fairly  and  legally,  before 
the  proper  tribunals,  unconnected  with  mere  questions  of  ec- 
clesiastical policy,  and  without  any  admixture  of  personal  or 
congregational  feelings.  P^egret  has  often  been  expressed  by 
many,  and  by  myself  among  others,  that  the  Presbytery  o( 
Philadelphia  had  not,  at  the  outset,  instituted  process  against 
yourself  instead  of  the  course  they  pursued.  I  am  sure,  how- 
ever, they  did  what  they  thought  for  the  best.  It  is  much 
easier  to  find  fault  after  a  measure  has  been  put  into  operation 
than  to  foresee  its  defects  and  prevent  ihem. 

Now,  dear  Brother,  your  recent  publication  has  re-opened 
the  door,  and,  unworthy  as  I  am  and  incompetant  to  the  so- 
lemn duty,  yet  duty  I  feel  it  to  be  to  enter  it ;  and  by  ar» 
open,  fair,  candid  and  Christian  prosecution  of  the  case,  to 
bring  out  a  formal  and  legal  decision  of  your  Presbytery  on 
the  points  alluded  to.  I  tlierefore  intend,  IJo  volenle,  to  pre- 
fer charges  against  you,  founded  solely  upon  your  Notes  on 
Romans  and  referring  to  rio  other  evidence  fjr  thetr  support, 
than  what  shall  be  dediiced  from  that  boek. 


APPENDIX.  9 

In  prosecuting  these  charges,  I  hope  I  shall  be  enabled  to 
act  with  gravity,  solemnity,  brotherly  affuction  and  ail  the  re- 
spect due  to  a  court  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  object  is  peace 
through  union  in  the  Truth  ;  and  I  hope  the  Clod  of  Truth 
and  Peace  will  direct  us  to  a  happy  issue.  Most  conscien- 
tiously do  I  believe  that  you  have  fallen  into  dangerous  error. 
I  feel  that  your  doctrine  shakes  the  foundation  of  my  perso- 
rial  hopes  for  eternity.  If  t<  be  true,  then  I  cannot  "read  my 
title  clear,  to  mansions  in  the  skifs."  Around  the  discussion 
of  a  subject  so  solemn,  I  cannot  doubt,  the  Son  of  God  will 
throw  a  hallowed  influence,  which  will  call  up  feelings  very 
different  from  those,  that  too  often  agitate  ecclesiastical  bo- 
dies, where  principles  of  minor  consequence  acquire  exciting 
power  from  adventitious  circumstances. 

May  I  now  ask  of  you  the  favor  to  transmit  to  Mr.  Henry 
McKeen's,  No.  1-12  Market  street,  a  note,  with  responses  to 
fee  following  queries,  viz. :— 1.  Will  you  admit  the  Notes  on 
RomaiTS,  bearing  your  name,  to  be  your  own  production,  and 
eave  me  the  trouble  of  proTing  it  7  2.  Will  you  waive  the 
constitutional  right  often  days,  &.c.,  [Book  pp.  396-402,]  and 
80  let  the  case  come  up  and  pass  through  the  Presbytery  with 
as  little  delay  as  possible;  provided  I  furnish  you  with  a  copy 
of  the  charges  at  least  that  number  of  days  beforehand  '? 

To  these  postulates  I  can  see  no  reasonable  objections  on 
your  pnrt,  and  presume  there  will  be  none. 

A  friend  of  mine  will  receive  your  reply   and  dispose    of  it 
agreeably  to  arrangements  already  made;  and  will  also  in- 
form me  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  Presbytery's  meeting. 
Your  brother  in  the  Lord, 

Geo.  JtTNKin. 

Of  this  conduct  I  hftve  a  right  to  complain  as  a  de- 
parture from  the  express  authority  of  Christ;  as  pre- 
venting the  possibihty  of  conference  and  explanation; 
as  giving  unchristian  publicity  to  charges  and  accusa- 
tions tending  to  injure  my  character,  and  usefulness, 
without  the  possibility  of  meeting  it  in  the  precise  spot 
where  Jesus  Christ  contemplated  that  such  accusa- 
tions should  be  met ;  and  as  depriving  me  of  that  pro- 
tection and  defence  which  at  this  point  the  Savior 
has  appointed  for  all  his  professed  followers,  and  all 
his  ministers. 

A  third  circumstance,  not  less  remarkable,  is,  that 
even  when  the  charges  had  been  brought,  no  charge 
of  crime  was  alleged,  nor  even  oVheresy.  The  Book 
of  Discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  proceeds  on 
the  supposition  that  a  minister  can  be  arraigned  only 
for  crmie  or  heresy,  ch.  v.  s.  4,  5,  6,  II.  It  never  con- 
templates that  suspicions  may  be  breathed,  or  pub- 
lished against  the  character  of  a  minister  unless 
some  one  shall  undertake  to  make  out  a  specific  of- 
fence, or  crime  ;  never  supposes  that  that  character 
may  be  held  up  as  a  matter  of  convenience  in  refer- 
ence to  which  theological  difficulties  may  be  discussed 
and  settled.  His  character  is  supposed  to  be  s-acred  : 
1* 


6  APPENDIX. 

and  as  in  all  other  cases,  he  is  to  be  held  innocent 
until  he  is  proved  to  be  guilty. 

Yet  in  tliis  instance,  Dr.  J.  alleged  neither  crime 
nor  heres)^.  Thous^h  in  his  letter  to  me,  he  char{?ed 
me  as  holdino^  opinions  that,  it"  true,  took  away  his 
personal  hopes  ol'  heaven — that  is,  in  efVect,  with 
leaching  doctrines  that  would  destroy  the  eoul  oC  a 
minister  forever  in  hell,  yet  he  brought  no  charge  of 
crime  or  heiesy.  From  some  cause  there  was  a  re- 
luctance to  give  these  charges  a  name.  When  a  man 
is  accused  before  a  civil  tribunal,  it  is  indispensable 
that  the  crime  be  specihed  in  the  indictment.  If  mur- 
der be  the  crime  charged,  it  is  indispensable  that  it  be 
legally  denominated  j  it  an  assault,  that  it  be  speci- 
fied; if  treason,  that  there  be  no  shrinking  from  the 
name.  Yet  in  these  charges  there  was  no  specific 
ofl'ence  charged.  It  was  neither  crime  nor  heresy  of 
xyhich  I  was  accused.  Nor  was  it  until  after  much 
delay,  nor  until  there  was  a  prospect  that  the  presby- 
tery would  not  proceed  to  a  trial  on  charges  so  vague, 
that  Dr.  J.  declared  that  he  regarded  the  charges  as 
Bubstantially  charges  of  heresy.  tVfiy  there  was  this 
ehrinking  from  specilying  the  intended  nature  of  the 
charge,  lias  never  been  explained.  It  has  thrown  an 
air  of  mystery  over  all  this  transaction,  which  it  is 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  tiie  jjrinciples  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  with  the  requirements  of  the  Presby- 
terian church  in  regard  to  the  character  ol"its  minis- 
ters. 

The  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  against 
which  these  charges  are  alleged,  were  written  in  pur- 
suance of  a  plan  formed  several  years  since.  That 
plan  was,  to  prepare  a  brief  expliination  of  the  New 
Testament  in  a  style  and  manner  adapted  to  popular 
use,  and  esi)ecially  to  the  wants  of  Bible  Classes  and 
Sabbath  Schools.  The  want  of  such  a  book  was 
every  where  deeply  felt,  and  it  became  apparent, 
that  this  want  must,  from  some  quarter,  be  supplied. 
The  demand  was  supposed  to  be,  not  of  a  work  deep- 
ly learned,  nnd  profound  ;  not  stating  the  critical  pro- 
cess by  which  the  meaning  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
is  arrived  at,  but  the  results  of  such  an  investigation  ; 
and  such  heads  of  practical  remarks  as  might  furnish 
topics  ol  useful  illustration  to  be  enlarged  on  at  plea- 
sure by  instructors  in  Sunday  Schools  and  Bible 
Classes.  A  part  of  that  plan  was  executed  in  the 
publication  of  "  Notes  on  the  Gospels"  ;  and  although 
1  felt  deeply  that  there  were  many  defects  in  the  exe- 
cution, yet  the  consciousness  that  such  a  work  was 
demanded,  that  I  might  be  contributing  in  some  de- 
gree to  form  the  views  of  the  rising  generation  to 
just  views  of  the  oracles  of  God.  encouraged  me  in 
my  work.    Amidst  the  anxious  cares  and  responsi- 


APPENDIX.  7 

bilitifcs  of  an  important  pastoral  charge,  tlie  work 
was  prepared  for  the  press  ;  und  the  luvorahle  recep- 
tion ofthiit  portion  ofiiic  work  i)y  the  Cliristian  pub- 
lic, Cavorahle  beyond  my  most  t^anguine  expectauons, 
shewed  Jiow  much  euch  a  work  was  demanded,  and 
how  ready  tlie  Christian  churches  were  to  avail 
themselves  ol"  any  eirort,  however  humble,  to  dilibsc 
just  views  ol"  the  interpretation  ol'  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

The  notes  on  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  are  a  part 
of  ihe  same  general  plan  ;  and  having  the  same  de- 
sign. Their  character  is  varied  only  as  the  nature  of 
the  subject  is  varied,  and  as  the  difficulties  of  the 
book  required  a  somewhat  more  Uhored  exposition. 
The  fact,  also,  that,  as  supposed,  some  important  er- 
roneous views  had  prevailed  respecting  the  true  in 
lerpretafion  of  the  epistle,  that  it  had  been  explained 
under  the  influence  of  erroneous  philosophical  opin- 
ions, required  additional  labor  to  remove  the  in- 
fluence of  that  philosophy,  to  leave,  it  possible,  noth- 
ing but  the  simple  sense  ot  the  inspired  writer.  The 
primary  design  was  not  to  attack  any  system  of  phi- 
losophy, or  religion,  but  to  arrive  at  the  simple  doc- 
trines of  the  apostle — an  object  which  necessarily  led 
to  some  of  the  statements  in  reference  to  which 
these  charges  are  brought. 

In  preparing  the  notes,  which  have  given  occasion 
to  these  charges  of  heresy,  1  was  not.  ignorant  that 
the  exposition  of  the  epistle  was  attended  with  great 
difficulty.  It  was  known  that  this  epistle  had  been 
regarded  as  the  great  ai-enaoi'  controversy,  and  that 
many  diti'erent  modes  of  interpretation  had  been  pro- 
posed and  defended  with  great  zeal  by  their  respec- 
tive advocates.  The  reasons  of  this  variety  of  inter- 
pretation, I  have  endeavored  to  state  in  the  introduc- 
tion to  the  "  Notes,"  {p.  ix.  x). 

I  am  not  conscious  of  being  so  obstinately  attached 
to  the  exposition  which  I  have  adopted  hs  to  be  un- 
willing to  be  convinced  of  error,  and  f/convinced,  to 
abandon  the  sentiments  which  I  have  expressed. 
Whether  the  mode  that  will  be  most  likely  to  secure 
a  change  of  opinion,  is  that  of  arraigning  me  for  the 
high  misdemeanor  of  heresy,  is  the  Christian  mode, 
and  the  most  desirable  to  secure  such  a  result,  I  shall 
not  now  take  upon  myself  to  inquire.  I  may  just  be 
permitted  to  say,  that  it  is  not  tiie  use  ol  hnrd  names, 
and  the  language  of  reproach,  that  will  secure  the  re- 
sult. In  this  land,  and  in  these  times,  a  change  of 
opinion  is  to  be  efl'ected  not  by  the  language  of  autho- 
rity, not  by  an  appeal  to  the  fathers,  not  by  calling  on 
us  simply  to  listen  to  the  voice  of  other  times — how- 
ever venerable  and  desirable  such  a  deference  may 
be  in  its  place — but  by  the  sober  and  solid  exposition 


8  APPENDIX. 

of  the  oracles  of  God.  Men,  even  in  error,  listen  re- 
spectfully to  those  who  atten)|)i  to  r-easoti  with  them, 
and  to  convince  them  that  they  an-  wronsr;  they  turn 
instinctively  awav  when  denunciation  takes  the  place 
of  argument,  ana  the  cry  of  heresy  is  the  substitute 
for  a  sober  appeal  lo  the  understanding. 

As  the  discussion  in  which  we  are  now  engaged  is 
one  that  may  deeply  atfect  my  character,  and  my  min- 
istry,and  still  more  as  it  may  have  a  material  bearing 
on  the  prevalence  of  truth,  I  may  be  permitted  to 
state  a  little  more  fully  the  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion in  which  I  have  written  these  notes.  These  prin- 
ciples are  stated  in  a  summary  manner  in  the  preface 

"The  design  has  been  to  state,  with  as  much  brevity  and 
simplicity  as  possible,  the  real  incaning  of  the  sacred  writer; 
rather  the  results  ol"  critical  inquiry,  as  far  as  the  author  had 
the  ability  and  time  to  pursue  it,  than  the  process  Dy  which 
these  results  were  reached.  The  design  has  been  to  state 
what  appfared  to  the  author  to  be  the  real  meaning  of  the 
epistle,  without  ani/  regard  to  any  existing  theolooical  sys- 
tem; and  without  any  deference  lo  the  opinions  of  others, 
farther  than  the  respectful  deference  and  candid  examination, 
which  are  due  to  the  opinions  of  the  learned,  the  wise,  and 
the  good  who  have  made  this  epistle  their  particular  study." 

In  regard  to  this  statement,  I  may  observe,  that 
my  design  was  to  give  the  true  meaning  of  the  sacred 
writer.  I  aimed  to  arrive  at  the  exact  sense  which 
the  apostle  intended  to  convey.  My  object  was  not 
to  attack  any  system  of  theological  opinion  which  is 
now  held,  or  which  has  ever  been  held,  but  to  arrive 
at  the  true  doctrine  of  the  inspired  writer  ;  and  that 
only.  If  in  arriving  at  this,  there  is  an  appearance  of 
having  attacked  any  existing  and  prevalent  opinions, 
I  may  be  allowed  to  expect  the  credit  of  sincerity 
when  1  say,  that  it  was  from  no  design  of  wagin:j 
war  on  those  dogmas,  but  becausa  it  did  not  seem  to 
me  possible,  in  the  existing  estate  of  theological  opin- 
ion, to  give  the  true  exposition  of  (he  epistle,  without 
attempting  to  remove  that  which  was  false;  nnd 
which  almost  by  prescription  had  come  to  be  consid- 
ered as  the  real  sense  of  the  sacred  writer.  He  that 
wishes  to  rear  an  edifice  that  shall  be  permanent,  is 
under  a  necessity  of  removing  any  obstrnction  that 
may  lie  in  his  way.  It  will  he  observed  that  in  the 
Ktatement  which  I  have  made  of  the  principles  on 
which  I  am' to  interpret  the  sacred  writers,  I  do  not 
claim  infiUibility  ;  nor  exemption  from  the  common 
infirmitiesof  human  nature;  I  do  not  assume  that  I  am 
free  Irom  all  prejudice,  or  bias  ;  nor  do  I  intend  to 
speak  witli  disparagement  of  the  opinions  cf  the  wise 
and  good  of  other  times.  I  simply  say  that  "  my  de- 
sign has  been  to  state  what  appeared  to  me  to  be  the 
real  meaning  of  the  e|)istle,  without  any   regard  to 


APPENDIX.  9 

any  existing  theological  system,  and  without  any  de- 
ference to  the  opinions  of  others,  further  thanthe  re- 
spectful deference  and  candid  e.vaininntion  which 
are  due  to  the  opinions  of  the  learned,  the  wise,  and 
the  ffood  who  have  made  this  epistle  their  particular 
stuaii.'"' 

It  was,  farther,  my   intention,  in   preparing   those 
notes,    not   to  be  influenced  in  (he  interprclation  by  ,t. 
regard  to  any  creed,  or  conlession  of  faith,  whatever. 
I  njai<e  this  tr.ank  avowal,  because  it  is  the  deliberate 
and  settled  purpose  of  my  mind  ;  and  because  it  is 
the  principle  by  which  [  expect  always  to  be  ffovern- 
ed.    I  therefore  state, 'that,  in  preparing  these  notes, 
I  have  never  had  the  VVestminsier  conlession  ofliiith 
before  me,   nor  any  other  confession  ;  I  have  never 
framed  a  sentence,   to  the  best  of  my  recollection, 
with  any  design   that   it  should  be  conformed  lo  the 
doctrines  of  any  confession  of  laith  ;  nor  have  1  ever 
framed  a  sentence  with  any  de.-ire  or   intention  that 
it  should  in  any  way  depart  from  any  such  conlession, 
I  have  not  made  any  such  conl'epsion  ol  faith  the  rule 
of  interpretation;  but  have  all  along  endeavored  to 
ascertain,  il  I  could,  what  was  the  mind  of  the  Spirit 
of  inspiration.    That  from  this  rule  I  have  never  un- 
consciously departed,  v.'ould  be  to  ascume  a  freedom 
from  bias,J3,and  from    the  prejudice   ol    opinion,    to 
which  I  by  no  means  lay  claim,  and   which  would  be 
more  than  human.     That  I  am  txemjjt  from  the  se- 
cret influence  of  long-cherished  opinions,  would  be  to 
lay  claim   to   what  my  knowledge  of  human  nature 
forbids  me  to  think   possible;  ana    which  would  be 
abundantly   refuted  and   rebuked  by  what  I  know  of 
the  proneness  of   my  ovvn  mind  to  err.    1  speak  novi; 
of  the  rule ;  not  of  the  conscious  imperfection  of  the 
)  execution.    My  meaning  i?,  that  1  regard  the  Bible, 
[  with  the  usual  auxiliary   helps  arising  Irom   philolo- 
•  gy.  criticism,  arcluFology,  history,  and  the  principles 
\  of  common  sense,  in  explaining  language,  as  designed 
Vto  be  interpreted,  without  any  aid  to  be  drawn  from 
/any  previously  cherished  ojiinions  of  men.    I  mean, 
I  that  the ?»ot«Z(y  should  not  be  first  formed,   and  then 
/the  system  run  into  it;  that  the  masses  of  truth  o{ 
1  the  sacred  Scriptures  shouKI  not  be  chiselled  to  make 
I  them  conform  to  any  previously  cherished  views  of 
'■  what  the  model  of  truth  should  be. 

It  is  not  necessary,  I  presume,  to  say  any  thing  in 
defence  of  this  principle  of  interpretation.  It  is  the 
common,  the  universal  principle,  laid  down  in  tlie 
books;  and,  I  doubt  not,  the  iirinciple  acted  on  as 
honestly  by  those  who  difler  from  me  in  opiiiion,  as 
by  myficlf.  No  mnn  can  be  cjualified  to  be  an  inter- 
preter of  the  Bible,  or  of  any  other  book,  except  as 
he  endeavors  to  act  on  this  simple  and  obvious  rule. 


10  APPENDIX. 

Neither  by  authority,  by  tradition,  nor  by  the  appre- 
liension  of  heresy,  is  a  man  to  be  deterred  Irom 
the  application  of  this  princi()le  ;  and  the  moment  a 
different  rule  is  acted  on,  in  fact  or  in  lorm,  (hat  mo- 
ment tlie  authority  ol  ili^  Bible,  as  iheorifrinal  Ibun- 
tain  uf  truth,  as  "  the  only  infallible  rule  of  lailh  and 
practice,"  ceases.  That  thit!  is  the  doctrine  of  (he 
Presbyterian  church,  cannot  be  doubted.  Thus  in 
the  form  of  "•overnment  it  is  said  that  "  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  manners." 
Ob.  1.37.  Aj?ain :  In  the  service  of  ordination  and 
licensure,  the  candidate  is  required  to  declare  his  be- 
lief that  "  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments are  the  word  of  God,  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice."— Ch.  xv.  37.  And  in  the 
large  Cat.  Q,.  3—"  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  are  the  word  of  God,  the  only  rule 
of  faite  and  obedience." 

I  may  here  be  permitted  to  state,  that  I  am  no  en- 
emy of  creeds  and  confessions  of  laith.  Never  have 
I  penned  a  sentence  against  them  ;  and  no  man  has 
ever  heard  me  speak  in  their  disparagement,  or  con- 
demnation. In  my  humble  way,  and  whenever  an 
opportunity  has  been  presented,  I  have  advocated 
their  use.  I  have  regarded  them  ae  not  inconsistent 
Avith  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament ;  as  cf  vhiue  to 
express  the  agreement  of  Christians  organized  into 
the  same  body;  to  acquaint  the  world  with  their 
sense  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  ap- 
prise others  of  the  opinions  which  they  will  be  ex- 
pected to  hold,  if  they  become  members  of  that  coni- 
munion  ;  as  in  fact  existing  in  all  churches,  either  in 
a  written  or  unwritten  form  ;  and  as  of  service  in 
aiding  in  the  defence  and  extension  of  the  truth.  A 
passage  in  my  sermon  on  "  the  way  of  salvation," 
which  has  been  often  referred  to,  has  been  as  often 
misunderstood.  In  that  passage,  it  is  declared,  that 
"  the  great  principle  on  which  the  author  supposes 
the  truths  of  religion  are  to  be  preached,  and  on  which 
he  endeavors  to  act.,  i.-s,  that  the  Bible  is  to  be  inter- 
preted by  all  the  honest  helps  within  the  reach  of  the 
preacher,  and  then  proclaimed  as  it  is — let  it  lead 
where  it  will,  within  or  without  Ihu  circumference  of 
any  arrangen)ent  ofdoctrines.  He  is  supposed  to  be 
respo!!sil)le  not  at  all  lor  its  imping  on  any  theo- 
iogi'-al  system  ;  nor  is  lie  to  be  cramped  by  any  frame- 
work o.'faith  that  has  been  reared  around  the  Bible." 
In  this  passage  it  was  never  intended  to  discard,  or 
undervalue  creeds  in  their  proper  place.^  It  was  de- 
signed only  to  assert  a  great  principle  of  interpreta- 
tion ;  that  the  Bible  is  to  be  interpreted,  not  by  refer- 
ence to  such  creeds,  but  by  fiiose  canons  which 
regard  it  as  the  original  fountain  of  truth;  that  its 


APPENDIX.  11 

meaning  is  to  be  ascertained  by  honest  induelry,  and 
Ijumble  jirayer  ;  and  that  its  heavenly  truth  is  not  to 
be  adulterated  by  any  impure  mixture;  or  frittered 
uway  by  any  softening  down  ot  its  hi^h  doctrines; 
or  accommodated  to  the  ojiinions  of  men,  however 
high  or  venerable  tliose  opinions  may  be  ;  or  modified 
by  any  human  system,  .however  ancient,  or  excellent ; 
and  that  those  trutlis  are  to  be  preached,  not  because 
they  coincide  with  a  theological  system,  but  because 
they  are  the  truth  o(  God.  And  1  here  take  the  liber- 
ty of  alHrming  before  my  presbytery,  and  once  for  all, 
that  I  never  have  doubted  the  propriety  of'creeds  and 
confessions  of  faith  in  the  church.  And  I  also  main- 
tain, that,  where  a  man  finds  his  views  ol"truih  to  be 
at  variance  with  the  "  sys^eOT  ol  doctrines"  in  the 
church  of  which  he  is  a  member,  so  as  to  be  in  fact 
another  "system,"  he  is  bound  in  common  lionesty 
to  leave  its  communion,  and  to  seek  to  spread  those 
doctrines  in  other  connexions,  or  in  an  independent 
ministry.  What  will  constitute  such  a  departure; 
what  will  be  a  fair  interpretation  of  the  confession 
itself;  and  how  far  this  is  to  depend  on  his  own  judg- 
ment, is  an  inquiry  which  it  is  not  needful  here  to  at- 
tempt to  investigate. 

In  the  exposition  of  this  epistle,  I  have  made  it  an  ob- 
ject to  avoid  the  use  ot  some  technical  words  which 
liave  been  lon^  employed  in  theology,  and  which  have 
usually  been  deemed  valuable  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Romans.  And  it  is  to  be  presumed,  as 
I  shall  endeavor  to  show,  tiiat  no  small  part  of  the 
charges  of  error  and  heresy  which  have  been  made 
against  the  book,  have  arisen  from  this  circumstance. 
Hadl  retained  language  which  has  been  almost  con- 
secrated for  ages  in  the  exposition  of  the  epistle,  it  is 
to  be  presumed  that  the  voice  of  alarm  would  not 
have  been  heard,  and  that  these  charges  would  have 
never  been  brought  against  me.  The  course  which 
I  have  pursued,  was  adopted  for  the  following  rea- 
sons; (1.)  My  main  design  was  to  express  the  mean- 
ing of  the  apostle,  and  not  to  give  currency,  or  per- 
manency, to  the  technicalities  of  theology.  That 
belongs  to  departments  of  theological  instruction 
which  I  have  not  undertaken.  (2.)  I  was  writing 
chiefly  for  the  young,  and  the  uneducated;  audit 
Avas  supposed  that  tho^e  technical  terms  and  phrases 
would  not  convey  to  them  the  knowledge  of  the  apos- 
tle's meaning,  so  well  as  plainer  language.  Common 
minds  are  little  accustomed  to  the  technical  terms  of 
art  or  science ;  and  to  most  young  persons,  such 
terms  might  require  a  more  labored  exposition  than 
the  language  of  which  they  might  be  a  professed  ex- 
position. In  conveying  my  ideas  to  children  and 
youth,  I  conceived  that  I  could  employ  terms  more 


12  APPENDIX. 

direct  and  intelligible  than  those  which  helotifi:  to  the 
proleysion  oCdivinity,  and  which  are  a|)proi)riaie  to  a 
chair  ofdidar-tic  or  puleinic  (heoiogy.  (3.)  Tiie  vvorda 
themselves  are  the  subject  ot  controversy.  Their 
me;iniiis  ie  not  yet  settled.  As  I  sh.dl  have  occasion 
yet  to  shovv,  the  terms  ^uilt,  imputation,  represent- 
ation,  covenant  head,  federal- litad,  &c.  convey  to 
one  class  of  men,  one  idea;  to  anorlier,  another :  to 
one,  it  may  be  a  correct  idea  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
apoelie;  to  a  second,  an  erroneous  idea;  and  to  a 
third,  no  idea  ;a  all.  They  have  been  employed,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  on  the  one  hand,  to  sustain  false  and 
erroneous  views  of  the  meaning  of  Paul  ;  and  on  the 
other,  iiave  furnished  occasion  to  the  sinner  for  his 
conlinuancein6in,and  a  plea  for  his  self-justification;_ 
and  it  appeared  to  me  undesirable  to  make  use  of 
those  terms  in  an  exposition  designed  lor  Sunday 
schoo's  and  Bible  classes.  (4.)  It  appeared  to  me  that 
an  unfounded  philosophical  theory  had  been  attach- 
ed to  many  parts  of  tliis  ei)i3tle,  and  that  those  tech- 
nical terms  had  arisen  from  that  theory,  and  were 
still  insisted  on  by  many  to  give  it  countenance.  As, 
in  explaining  the  eiiistle,  it  became  necessary  to  show, 
as  well  as  I  was  able,  that  that  theory  was  unfounded, 
and  embarrassed  the  interprefation,  it  seemed  desir- 
able to  employ  laiiiruage  which  did  not  pre-suppose 
the  theory,  and  which  could  be  understood  by  the 
common  mind.  Whether  I  have  acted  wisely  in  this, 
it  is  now  (or  the  presbytery  to  inquire. 

Belore  proceeding  to  the  direct  consideration  oi' 
the  charges  alleged  against  me,  I  may  be  permitted 
to  make  a  remark  on  my  views  of  the  standards  of 
the  cburr.h  to  which  we  belong.  I  have  alreaily  ex- 
pressed my  belief  of  the  utility  of  creeds,  or  articles 
of  faith.  Of  the  confession  of  lliith  of  the  VVostmin- 
eter  Assembly,  I  may  be  allowed  to  say,  that  when  1 
expressed  my  assent  to  it  as  a  "  system  of  doctrines,"  ] 
I  did  it  cordially,  and  iha]  1  ha\'e  never  had  occasion 
to  regret  the  net.  I  then  regarded  it  as  I  do  now, 
and  ever  have  done,  as  the  best  summary  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Bible  which  I  have  seen,  and  as  express- 
ing my  views  ol  the  true  scheme  ol' Christian  theolo- 
gy in  a  manner  far  better  than  any  other  articles  of 
faith  which  I  have  ever  examined.  The  syntem  of 
trul/i  conltiined  there,  asdisiiuguished  Irom  all  other 
systems — the  Socmian,  the  Pelagian,  the  Ari.in,  the 
Armiinan,  &c. — h,is  appeared  to  me  to  be  llie  true 
system;  and  without  hesitation,  or  fluctuation,  I  have 
received  ic.  I  have  not  forgoiten,  however,  that 
nearly  t\/o  hundred  years  have  elapsed  since  it  was 
formed  ;  that  language  often  varies  its  meaning;  and 
that  vie.ws  of  philosophy,  which  insensibly  insinuate 
themselves  into  theology,  seldom  continue   the  same 


APPENDIX.  13 

Ibr  two  hundred  years.  I  have  thon,'Tht  thai  there 
was,  pi;rha|)8,  soiiievvluit  too  much  oriiarthiieFe,  and 
Bevoriiy  ol'hiiiyruage,  in  the  ^ciieial  ciirsi  of  that  cori- 
fetisioii;  and  that  a  lew  exprerisioiis  do  not  convey, 
withoiU  much  labored  expueiiion,  the  meaiiinj^  o(  the 
Sacred  Scripiures.  To  a  lew  of  those  expressions, 
Bmall  in  number,  and  not  aliectini?  the  syntem  asa. 
system,  I  iiave  always  taken  the  exceptions  which 
others  have  been  allowed  lo  do.  My  views  iiavc  not 
beendiy;j;uised,  neitiier  before,  at  the  lime,  nor  since 
my  licensure  and  ordination. 

1  have  not  chanfijed  my  viewa  materially  since  I 
was  licerit-ed  to  preach  the  yo^'pel.  In  ilie  Theolo- 
gical Semmaiy  at  Princeton,  my  views,  wiiicli  were 
the  sami^  as  now,  were  fully  known.  By  ilie  presby- 
tery of  New  Brunswick,  liy  vvliicli  1  was  licensed, 
thi'y  were,  or  mij;ht  h.ive  been,  fnlly  known  ;  and  had 
those  sentiments  been  of  the  d.uiyerous  character 
which  these  charges  suppose,  it  was  to  be  presumed 
that  the  venerable  fathers  and  brethren  of  that  pres- 
bytery would  have  admoni.^hed  me  to  pause,  and 
have  refused  me  their  sanction  as  a  preacher  of  the 
gospel.  The  "system  of  doctrines"  contained  in  the 
standards,  1  received  as  a  .systwm.  1  received  it,  not 
indeed  ever  exijressin^  my  assent  to  eoery  ex- 
pression and  form  of  expression  ;  not  lo  be  interpret- 
ed by  one  or  more  persons  in  the  cluirch  who  might 
assert  the  aiiUioriiy  to  interpret  it  for  ail  their  breth- 
ren, and  who  mixht  modestly  presume  that  none  but 
themselves  were  competent  to  understand  language  ; 
not  to  be  explained  by  the  traditions  of  the  elders  — 
but  as. reserving  to  mysell  the  right,  in  common  with 
all  others,  of  examining  ilie  iani'-uage,  and  forming  an 
opinion,  under  pr()|)er  responsibilities,  cf  iis  meaning. 
T  he  reasons  for  adopting  it,  with  this  understanding, 
will  appear  presently. 

The  question  which  this  presbytery  is  now  called 
on  to  decide,  is.  whether  tlie  views  whicli  are  ex- 
pressed in  these  Notes  are  ?iny  longer  to  be  tolerated 
in  tlie  Preshyterian  church  in  the  Uniied  States; 
whether  a  man  who  held  them  at  the  time  of  his 
licensure,  and  ordination  ;  who  has  held  and  preach- 
ed them  for  len  years  :  and  who  holds  them  in  com- 
mon with  no  small  part  of  the  more  than  two  thou- 
sand mini-lers  in  our  connexion,  is  to  bo  allowed 
peaceably  to  hold  them  still,  and  to  labor,  under  the 
influence  of  these  views,  in  endeavoring  to  6av« 
souls;  or  whether  he  is  to  be  pronounced  heretical 
and  unsound  ;  his  character  to  be  ruined,  so  far  as  a 
decision  of  his  brethren  can  ruin  it;  himself  to  be  har- 
rasaed  in  his  feelings,  and  erab  irrassed  in  his  preach- 
ing; and  the  large  number  of  ministers,  and  elders, 
and  comtnuoicants  in  the  churches:  who  hold  the  same 


14  APPENDIX, 

views,  declared   to  be  iinworthy  an  office,  a  name, 
and  a  place  in  the  church  of  God. 

That  the  statement  of  the  question  now  before  the 
presbytery  is  not  made  in  too  stronjij  languaj^e  is  ap- 
p^irent  from  the  followinjif  considerations.    (1)  The 
prosecutor  liimseli  lias  e.xpressed   a  similar  view  of 
the  nature  of  his  charges.     He  has  alleged  in  his  let- 
ter to  the  presbytery  and  to  myself,  that  these  doc- 
trines shake  thcfoumlalion  of  his  personal  hopes  for 
eternity  ;  and  that  if  they  are  true  he  cannot  read  his 
title  clear  to  mansions  in  the  skies.    There  can  be 
no  more  serious  charge  a>?ainst  a  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel, than  that  he  teaches  doctrines  which  take  away 
a  man's  hope  of  heaven  ;  that  his  opinions  tend  to  un- 
settle the  title   to  eternal   rest;  that  his  instructions 
tend  to  beguile,  and  destroy   the  souls  of  men  ;  and 
that  instead  of  saving  them,  according  to  the  high 
design  of  his  ofTice,  he  is  leading  them  down  to  des- 
truction and  perdition.     When  a  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel is  charged  with  inculcating  sentiments  that  des- 
troy the  hope  of  heaven,  the  highest  point  of  accusa- 
tion against  his  ministerial  character  is  reached  :  and 
if  true,  he  is  unfit  to  be  a  guide  to  the  souls  of  men. 
(2.)  A  minister  u(  the  gospel  will  not  take  upon  him- 
self the  tapk  of  bringing  charges  against  another,  un- 
less he  believes   them  to  be  of  a  very  serious  and 
alarming  nature.    He  is  aware  that  he  makes  himself 
liable  to   be   censured  as  a  slanderer  oi   the  go?pel 
ministry  (Book  of  Dis.  ch,  v.  s.  7.) ;  he  is  aware  that 
his  own  character  must  suffer  if  they  are  not  .sustain- 
ed ;  and  he  cannot  but  be  aware,  that  in  thus  bring- 
ing charges,  he  is  producing  agitation,  alarm  and  sus- 
picion ;  that  he  is  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  churches; 
and,  what  is  of  not  less  importance,  that  he  is  laying 
a  tax  on  the  time  and  patience  of  tliose  who  are  call- 
ed to  investigate  the  charges.    It  involves  no  common 
responsibility  to  call  a  presbytery  from  the  direct  work 
of  saving  souls  to  engage  in  the  strifes  of  public  dis- 
cussion.   A  man  who  regards  his  own  character  will 
not  bring  charges  against  a  minister  of  the  gospel 
until  he  teels  that  the  heresy  is  so  great  that  all  these 
hazards  are  to  be  met ;  nor   until  he  feels  that  the 
benefit  to  his  cause  is  likely  to  be  a  compensation  for 
all  the  great  and  acknowledged  mischiefs  which  the 
very  act  of  bringing  charges  of  this  nature  must  pro- 
duce. (3.)  if  it  should  be  said,  that  the  purpose  of  thus 
bringing  charges  was  to  discuss  certain  abstract  doc- 
trines; to  obtain  a  judicial  decision  on  the  proposi- 
tions rather  than  on  the  w,an  ;  to  ascertain  the  truth, 
and  to  settle  a  controversy,  rather  than  to  in) peach  the 
character  of  a  minister,  then  I  reply,  that  if  this  was 
the  design,  it  should  have  been  so  stated.    A  propo- 
sal should  have  been  Bubmitted  to  the  pre.sbyler/ 


APPENDIX.  15 

fo  organize  itfelfinto  a  court  of  judges,  on  a  trial  o' 
Kkill  in  controversy,  and  tlic  propositions  thould  have 
been  suhmiitcd  for  discussion  ;  and  cliarfjcrt  eliould 
not  have  i)e('n  broufrhl  atjiiinst  a.  niinisrer  of  the  gos- 
pel. But  this  could  not  have  been  the  desijrn.  When 
a  man  is  arraigned  on  specific  charjres,  it  is  not  for 
discussion,  k  is  for  crime.  It  is  to  brin^  him  to  a 
trial  foran  ajfimce ;  and  1  utterly  deny  the  j-ighl  ofany 
man  to  arraijrn  me  hei'ore  a  court,  merely  to  make  me 
the  occasion  for  a  disc^ission  of  an  abstract  doctrine, 
in  theology,  politics,  or  morals.  Twr>  civilians  may 
a<:^ree  to  discuss  before  a  moot  court,  the  abstract 
question  of  the  prei'ise  nature  of  the  crime  of  murder  ; 
or  larceny  ;  to  examine  the  authorities,  to  determine 
what  eonstilutes  malice  jirepeiise,  or  what  would  be 
jiroper  evidence  of  the  fact  of  thell,  and  all  would  be 
well.  But  when  one  of  them  goes  before  a  grand 
jury,  and  charges  the  other  with  the  malice  prepense 
and  the  act  of  larceny,  the  case  is  materially  changed. 
It  becomes  then  not  a  moot  question,  but  a  serious 
business  involving  character,  hapfiiness,  or  life.  Sup- 
l)0se  that  Dr.  Junkin  hud  arr.iigned  me  before  a  court 
having  competeni  jurisdiction, on  a  charge  of  adultery. 
Suppose  that  the  I  ict  was  proclaimed  abroad,  and 
euppicions  were  excited,  and  counsel  was  employed, 
and  a  jury  impmnelled.  Suppose  the  public  mind  had 
liad  time  to  he  agiialed  on  llie  subject,  and  a  strong 
bias  sliould  set  against  my  character, and  peace  should 
flee  Iroin  my  fimily,  and  my  public  work  should  be 
closed.  And  then  suppose  that  the  public  should  be 
gravely  told  that  all  this  was  not  desigtied  to  injure 
me,  but  to  settle  certain  mooted  points  about  the 
crime  in  question  ;  and  thai  all  this  array  of  indict- 
ment, and  oftestimony,  and  of  trial,  had  lieen  merely 
designed  to  bring  up  the  subject  before  a  tribunal  in 
order  to  obtain  a  decision  on  the  law.  And  would 
it  be  possible  for  the  community  to  repress  its  in- 
dignation against  conduct  like  this?  And  yet  how 
would  this  ditl'cr  from  the  act  of  formally  bring- 
ing charges  of  heresy  against  a  minister,  and  pub- 
lishing them  abroad,  find  exciting  suspicions,  and 
using  all  the  influence  of  tfie  name  of  the  acccuser  to 
destroy  ministerial  character,  and  ihen  gravely  say- 
ing that  all  this  is  designed  merely  to  settle  some  lili- 
gated  question  in  theology  7  Yet  this  is  evidently  the 
object  aimed  at  professedly  in  the  charges  of  Dr.  Jun- 
kin. Thus  he  says,  in  his  letter,  that  '"  peace  and 
union  in  evangelical  effort  cannot  take  place  as  long 
as  these  important  doctrinal  points  remain  unsettled, 
and  that  therefore  all  the  Iriends  of  such  union  and 
peace  ought  to  desire  the  final  adjustment,"  &c.  that 
"  many  wished  to  see  them,"  that  is  those  doctrinal 
points,  "brought  up  fairly  and  legally  before  the  pro- 


16  APPENDIX. 

per  tribunals,"  A,r.  "  IVow,  dear  brolher."  he  ndi}=, 
"  your  recent  publication  Ims  re-opened  ilie  door, "thai 
iii,/or  (/iscussiiiff  tliose  poii.ts,  'and  unworthy  as  1 
iin),  and  incompeleni  to  the  solemn  duty,  yet  doty  I 
leel  it  to  be  to  enter  it,  and  by  an  open,  fair,  candid, 
and  christian  pro.«rcution  of  tlie  case,  to  brinjr  out  a 
lormal  and  legal  decision  of  your  presbytery  on  tub 
I'OINTS  AiAUDED  TO,"  lliat  is.  to  pelllc  cerliiin  abstract 
mooted  doctrines.  '"  I  therelore  intend."  he  adds,  "  to 
prefer  char^e.^  a2;ain3t  you,"  that  is,  to  hold  me  upos 
a  convenient  staifiiip^  point,  to  Facrifice  my  time, 
and  strength,  and  lacerate  niv  feding^p,  and  obstruct 
my  work,  ill  understand  it,  to  <.'ive  convenient  occa- 
sion  lor  the  discussion  and  decision  ofceriain  abstract 
doctrines  before  the  ecclesiasiical  tribunals.  A/jainrt 
this  claim,  I  lilt  up  the  voice  of  remonstrance,  as  a 
violation  of  the  ri^-his  which  every  man  has.  No 
man  has  a  right  to  arraiirn  nu-  to  give  him  the  occa« 
sion  to  diejil  ly  his  l;ilcnt,  or  elocjuence,  or  learning, 
in  a  mo'it  f|uesiion  of  theology.  The  moment  chargea 
are  talded  against  a  minister,  the  whole  sOliject  as- 
sumes a  character  involving  reputation,  integrity, 
and  usclulness.  It  is  not  ilien  a  businees  of  absLiuc- 
tion,  it  is  an  allair  oi'criinr. 

The  fxtciit  of  the  naitt  r  at  issue,  at  any  time,  is  fo 
be  judged  of  by  an  examination  oi'  the  charges.  In 
this  case,  the  specifications  are  ten  in  number,  in 
each  one  of  vvliich  there  is  charged  a  violation  of  the 
conlession  ol  fiith,  ami  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 
In  each  one  of  which  there  is  a  separjiie  ar:d  solemn 
fpt'cificaiion  ol  violation  of  orditiation  vows;  ard  of 
unfaitbfiilne>s  to  the  high  trust  reposed  in  a  minister 
of  the  eos|)el.  The  osff/egale  of  fen  such  iristarices 
of  a  violation  of  ordination  vows,  if  true,  must  affect, 
and  must  be  di'.siirnt'd  to  all'ecf.  a  man's  character  for 
life  ;  and  such  as  to  draw  on  him  tlie  sentence  of  dis- 
qualification for  the  office  which  he  holds. 

Alter  these  preliminary  observations,  whose  lengthy 
it  is  hoped  Avill  be  excused  by  the  circumGtrnccs  of 
the  case,  I  proceed  to  the  main  incjuiry,  whether  the 
sentiments  which  I  have  taught  are  to  be  tolerated 
in  the  Presbyterian  church? 

There  are  tv.'o  points  before  the  psesbytery  lobe 
considered.  One  is,  wheiher  the  •' charges"  nov^  al- 
leged, express  the  true  sense  of  the  l)ook  airainst 
wliich  Ihey  are  brousrhf  ;  and  the  other  is,  whether 
it" they  do,  the  sentiments  tin  mselv<  s  are  contrary  la 
the  Scriptures  and  the  conlession  of  faith.  This  re- 
mark is  of  importance,  bee  luse,  whatever  may  be  my 
belief  on  the  points  referred  to,  iffhe  charges  do  not 
express  the  sense  ol  the  book,  and  are  not  sustained 
l»y  this,  they  cannot  be  sustained.  My  real  belief  I  do 
not  hesitate  nt  any  time  ^c  ivvcvv  j  but  the  presbyter)' 


APPENDIX,  17 

is  now  concerned  with  that  only,  so  far  as  that  belief 
is  expressed  in  ihe  note?!  on  the  cjiistie  to  llie  Romans. 
Against  several  of  tlie  cliarges  under  consideration, 
I  shall  urpe  tills  plea,  that  they  accusf  nie  of  senti- 
ments which  arc  by  no  means  advanced  iti  the  book 
belbre  us.  In  reg'nrd  to  the  otiiers,  I  eliail  en<leavor 
to  show  that  they  express  the  true  sense  of  the  Bible 
according  to  the  best  means  which  I  have  of  inter- 
preting it;  and  that  tliey  are  not  a  departure  from 
the  standards  of  the  church. 

A.id  here  a  very  itn|)ortant  inquiry  meets  us.  What 
are  the  standards  of  t/ic  church;  and  what  princijjlea 
are  to  guide  tlie  presHytery  in  tieier mining  whether 
these  sentiments  are,  or  are  not  in  accordance  with 
those  standards  ?  Do  those  standards  consist  in  the 
confession  ol'  faith,  and  the  catechisms  to  be  inter- 
preted with  the  utmost  strictness,  in  every  phrase 
and  expression?  Do  (hey  require  assent  to  every 
sliade  of  doctrine,  and  to  every  word,  as  il  they  were 
iafallible  ?  Are  they  to  be  interpreted  according  to 
the  views  ol  any  one,  or  any  number  of  sell-consiitul- 
ed  expounders  of  the  law,  who  claim  i/ic?'/' interpre- 
tation to  be  "  the  only  infallible  rule  of  fuiih  and  prac- 
tice?" Are  we  to  rely  on  the  tradition  of  the  elders, 
and  as);  how  our  fathers  understood  them'?  Or  are 
we  to  interpret  them  as  we  interpret  all  other  writ- 
ings, by  the  acknowledged  use  of  language;  by  the 
common  sense  of  men;  by  our  own  views  of  the  mean- 
ing of  words  ;  and  by  that  obvious  latitude  in  regard 
to  certain  ex|)ressions.  not  atiecting  the  essential  fea- 
tures of  the  system,  which  seems  indispensable  in  an 
uninspired  composition  embracing  so  many  particu- 
lars, and  so  many  prolbund  doctrines,  and  so  much 
thai  pertains  to  the  philosophy  of  mind,  as  the  con- 
lession  of  faith? 

The  following  circumstances  may  perhaps  lead  ua 
10  just  views  of  the  question  what  are  the  stand- 
ards, and  whether  t/iese  sentiments  are  to  be  tole'j 
rated  any  tourer  in  the  Presbyterian  Church? 

(1.)  At  our  ordination  we  express  our  assent  to  the 
confession  of  laiih  "  as  contaming  the  System  of 
doctrines  tdughi  in  the  Holy  Scriptures."  What  is 
the  obvious  import  of  these  expressions?  Is  it  not 
that  the  holy  scriptures  are  to  be  regarded  as  iheori- 
einni  source  of  iruth;  the  "  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice"?  To  ibis  we  express  our  solemn 
assent  at  our  ordination.  Form  olGov.  cli.  xv.  3-12. 
The  phrase,  si/s/e?n.  of  docirine  is  evidently  a  qua- 
llfyinir  phrase,  meaning  that  the  Animus  im  po- 
nentis  is  that  the  conlession  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
arrangement  v/hich  expresses  the  general  sense  of 
the  sacred  sciiptures.  A  systevi  is  "  an  assemblage 
of  things  adjusted  as  a  whole  plan  or  scheme,  coa- 
2* 


Id  A|>PEN'D1X, 

t«i5llng  of  many  parte  connected  in  eur.h  n  manner  nu 
to  create  a  ch.un  orniutual  tlept^ndencu  e.'' —  VVtbeltr. 
We  epeak  ol  a  systein  ol'  loj^ic  ;  a  systtm  ol'  asiro^ 
nomy  ;  a  system  ol  pliilopophy  ;  a  system  of  holany, 
chemistry,  morality,  guvernnicni,  &c.  In  lliis  we 
mean  to  dislintrui/?li  one  arransiomcru  of  doc  rines  on 
these  t;u!)jects  I'roiii  anollier — not  to  express  tiir  un- 
qualified assv'rit  to  every  |i  atiire,  and  evciy  pariiiular 
in  the  system.  Wc  e>»pre:;>-<  cur  assent  to  ilio  systivi 
which  we  cinhracf,  as  di.viin;;iji.-iicd  iVom  siune  other 
system.  A  man  vs  ho  embraces  i lie  Lirn  ffiansyftemot 
botany,  as  preleralile  tj  aiioiher  system,  is  nut  jire- 
cluded  iVoui  ex|)ressiii°:  his  distent  IVoin  the  pro- 
priety of  the  cl.isbilicatioii  ol  some  of  the  plants 
which  may  be  enumerated.  The  system  may  be 
maintained  as  a  system,  while  ilie  pr  prieiy  ol  cer- 
tain minute  arrangements  may  he  ilcobled.  A  man 
who  eitibraces  ilic  Cojieriiiciui  sysieia  ol"  astro;ionry 
in  preference  to  the  Piolemaic,  m;jy  have  doubl^ about 
some  of  the  minute  statements  in  recard  to  ilie  tye- 
lem,  while  siill  its  great  and  disiiMj^uiKbine  feaiiues 
shall  be  uminiaitied.  To  deny  this,  would  be  to  re- 
press all  invest  illation,  and  to  give  to  the  system  the 
idea  ol'  iidainbilily. 

So  aho  in  the  doctrines  of  religion.  To  embrace  the 
"  SJ/.s/t'rt?  nf  doctrines"  in  llie  conree-ion  of  lluih,  mu.'^t 
mean  to  denote  the  emliracing  of  that  pyslem  iisdis- 
tinguisiied  from  the  ."iociiian,  the  Ariari,  ihe  Pela- 
gian, the  Armini.ii).  It"  this  was  not  ilie  Kieaiiii;|r, 
the  term  system  would  tievcr  have  been  in.*!  ritd. 
And  to  deny  ihi.--,  is  to  suppose  that  the  confession  is 
invested  whh  inrillibiiity,  and  occupies  the.  place  cl 
the  scrii)tures  as  a  rule  ol  !>,iih  and  practice. 

(2.)  "I'lie  "  system  of  docirise  in  the  cotilession  of 
faith,  is  nruloulitedly  emluaci  d  by  rbcse  who  adhere 
to  the  Mibctaniial  or  es>cnii  d  n.tture  of  those  diiC- 
trines,  hut  who  n;ay  in  some  laiimpnt  t:int  points  ditler 
as  to  the  modes  of  e.\plana;ion.  For  exauiple,  men 
may  ai:rfe  in  ! '.e  fuct  oftiit-  dociriie  of  tlu^  1  linilv  in 
opposiiion  to  the  doctrines  ol  the  Svtcinian,  and  Sa- 
beili.in,  who  may  yet  not  be  able  to  suiiscribe  to 
every  word  in  tue  Ath.iiat-i.ui  creed.  They  mt'y 
asrree  in  the  fact  ol  thedudrine  ol  the  vicarious  suf- 
l"eriti;;s  of  (Jlirisi  in  oppofition  to  the  Unitarian,  and 
yet  one  may  adhere  lo  the  quid  pro  tjuo,  or  Uethse- 
ma  e  view  ;  a  setoi  d  may  aooi-t  the  idea  of  ihe  infi- 
nite ra/M«  of  the  alonenn'nt ;  ii  third  may  liold  that 
it  was  originally  o7;/9//tv/6/e  to  ore  niati  as  much  as 
another,  ami  a  fourth  may  hold  that  it  wns  desi<ined 
for  all.  In  Ilie  same  way,  men  may  a::ree  in  the  sub- 
stanti  d  facts  respecting  the  inlrodnciion  ol  sin  into 
the  world,  stated  in  tlie  Calviiiisiio  plan,  in  oppcsi- 
tion  to  the  views  of  the  Pelagian,  or  the  Unitarian, 


APPENDIX.  19 

nnd  yet  difftT  aR  to  a  pIiilosoplii^.Hl  cxpl.ination.  AH 
may  n^roe  Uiat  il  was  hy  ihe  eiri  of  one  man  ;  that  hi»* 
t^in  securod  their  fall  and  ruin  ;  tliat  in  virtue  of  th« 
connexion  wiili  him  all  come  into  the  world  suliject  to 
Fit»  and  woe,  ami  dealli,  and  that  all  this  is  in  accord- 
ance with  a  divine  arransemenf.  And  yet  one  aiay 
BiippofcC  that  lliis  is  to  be  explained  on  llie  theory  that 
nil  were  one  with  Adam,  and  tiMt  ihere  wa«  a  per- 
sonal ideniily  hciween  them  and  him;  another,  that 
he  acted  as  their  rejiresentaiive  and  liiat  thus,  though 
persDiialiy  blaIllele^8,  his  sin  is  charged  on  them  ;  and  n 
third  thai  neilher  ofiheise  ihcoriee  exphini,  hui  rather 
embarrass  the  subject,  and  ihiit  ii  is  wise  to  be  con- 
tented with  ihu  auiipiej'arts  as  they  are  jjrcisented  in 
tiie  scrip! ures,  and  in  the  world.  Now  while  the 
/jf/s  in  ihe  case  which  are  esseniial  lo  ihe  "  i^yt;te7n 
(it  doctrine"  are  held,  who  shall  assume  thai  hit-  ex- 
jilanatiou  is  the  only  otic  possible,  and  that  the  othera 
are  to  be  dceaicd  heretical  ?  VV  helher  the  main,  or 
essential /af^5  in  the  case  have  becii  adhered  to,  or 
departed  Iroai,  is  lor  tlie  Presbytery  to  decide  in  all 
oases  ol'  licen.?ure  or  ordination  ;  and  no  man,  or  eet 
of  men,  have  a  right  to  assume  that  all  orthodoxy  is 
with  ihea>;  all  heresy  with  others. 

(3  )  It  is  impossible,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  se- 
cure esitire  and  perfect  uniformity  in  every  niimile. 
article  of  doctrine  in  a  book  so  firi^e  as  our  contessioQ 
(if  faith,  and  in  a  church  so  hir^e  as  our.-i.  We  em- 
brace ia  our  communion  more  than  two  liiousand  or- 
dained and  licensed  preachers,  and  two  hutidred  aDd_ 
thirty  thousand  communicants.  The  confession  of 
faith,  aiid  catechisms  cf  the  church  |)roftss  to  go  over 
(he  whole  ijround  of  Chi  istiiin  d(.ictrii.e  and  dulien. 
The  doctriats  are  expressed  in  lurm  and  language 
purely  human  ;  and  ofien,  IVom  tiie  very  nature  of  the 
ca8e,  iiuermingled  v^ilh  j)hi!osophical  views  which 
were  prevalent  when  the  confession  was  Iramcd.  in 
a  book  like  the  I»;'-le,  where  all  is  inspired,  perfect 
unjlbrmiiy  ia  regard  to  prolesscd  belief  must  be 
maintained.  In  tne  Roiuan  Catholic  com m union, 
where  the  Iwad  luofesseslo  ib.ink  for  all  its  members, 
and  where  all  is  ectllcJ  by  aufhoriiy,  such  a  unifor- 
mity might,  with  more  shew  of  reason,  be  expected. 
But  in  the  Froleetant  churclies,  where  it  is  ilie  birlh- 
ri^lit  of  every  minisier  and  member  lo  think  for  him- 
selt',  and  wluire  thought  and  invesii^alian  ynust  he 
tree,  no  such  thing  is  practicable.  11  any  man  has 
ever  cherished  the  hope  ih.it  a  quarter  of  a  million  of 
minds  in  one  generation  could  be  made  lo  think  just 
alike  on  ihe  various,  andmuliiludinous  subjects  inour 
etandarde  ;  that  every  one  of  those  minds  must  be  ad- 
justed on  ctiis  bed  ol  Procrustes,  and  that  this  pro- 
cess can  be  kept  up  to  meet  the  udvaucing  ojillions  ot' 


'20  APPENDIX. 

coming  generations  who  shall  adopt  the  confession, 
iie  lias  sadly  mistaken  the  nature  ol  mind,  and  the 
spirit  of  tiie  nge  in  which  he  lives.  And  while,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  it  is  impofiRible  but  that  there 
should  he  some  dilferences  ol  opinion,  it  is  for  the 
church  to  declare,  in  a  constitutional  manner,  what 
shall  he  rcf!^.irJed  as  a  departure  from  the  essential 
doctrines  of  the  confession,  and  shall  deserve  depoei- 
lion  or  excommunication. 

4.  That  the  Presbyterian  church  in  this  country, 
did  not  contemplate  in  its  orjraiiizaiion  any  such  lite- 
ral, and  exact  unilbrmily  of  opinion,  is  apparent  from 
ihe  dilfcrence  in  the  terms  of  subscripiion  here,  and 
in  the  church  in  Scotland  Irom  whicii,  according 
to  the  Biblical  Repertory,  "  by  far  the  greater  por- 
tion of  our  rules  and  habits  are  derived."  In  our 
church  we  express  assent  to  the  '  System  of  doctriiie' 
therein  contained.  In  the  iScotiish  cliurch  every 
licenciate  is  required  to  give  his  assent  lo  "  lim  whole 
doctrine  contained  in  the  confession,"  and  "  to  disown 
ail  other  doctrines,  and  tenets,  and  opinions  whatso- 
ever, contrary  to,  or  inconsistent  with  ilie  Ibresaid 
confession."  This  is  the  kind  of  subscription  which 
is  contended  for  in  our  churcii ;  but  which,  it  is  evi- 
tienc,  our  Standards  did  not  intend  to  rt-cjuire.  That 
this  interpret-uion  is  correct,  is  manifest  from  the  lact 
that  the  Presbyterian  chnri  h  has  made  a  ditference 
in  the  ordinary  assent  of  licentiates  and  ord.iine<l 
ministers  to  llie  conlession,  and  the  Sul)scription  re- 
quired by  the  Professors  in  our  Theological  Semina- 
ries. In  the  latter  every  Professor  is  required  solemn- 
ly to  promise  that  he  will  ''not  inculcate,  teach,  or 
insinuate  amj  thins^  which  shall  appear  to  him  to  con- 
tradict or  contravene,  either  direclly  or  impliedly, 
ANY  THING  taught  in  the  confession  of  Faiiii  or  cate- 
chisms." Minutes  ol  Genl.  A&sy.  1811.  This  great; 
particularity  and  exactness  would  not  have  been  re- 
quired, if  it  had  been  supposed  that  this  point  had  been 
sufficiently  secured  by  tlie  fact  of  their  liaving  adopt- 
ed the  confession  as  containinir  the  '  System  of  doc- 
trine' at  their  ordination.  The  lact  that  this  oHice  in 
so  strongly  and  minutely  g-uarded,  shows  that  greater 
latitude  and  liberty  are  contemplated  among  the  ordi- 
nary ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  members  ol  the 
churches. 

5.  The  same  thing  is  put  beyond  all  possibility  of 
controversy,  by  the  ''  Proviso"  wlii.-h  was  adopted  in 
the  Sy nodical  act,  when  the  W'esi minster  conlession 
and  catechisms  were  received  as  the  Standards  of  the. 
Presbyterian  church.  That  act  was  passed  by  the 
Synod  in  1729,  and  the  Proviso  is  in  the  following 
words  viz : 


APPENDir.  21 

"  And  in  case  any  minister  of  the  Synod,  or  any  candi- 
date for  the  ministry  shall  have  any  scruple,  with  respect  to 
any  article,  or  aiticks  of  said  condstion  ;  he  shall  in  time  of 
making  said  declaration,  declare  his  scruples  to  the  Synod  or 
presbytery  ;  wiio  shall  notwithstanding,  adnm  him  lo  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  ministry  wiihin  our  hounds,  and  to  miriisteriul 
communion  if  the  Synod  or  prcsby  lery,  shall  judge  his  scruples 
not  ei'senlial,  or  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  govern- 
ment." 

The  act  of  tlio  Synod  was  tlic  basis  of  tlie  union  in 
1753  ;  and  ihis  Proviso  has  n'V/er  bi;en  witlidruvvn.  or 
repealed;  and  is  in  i'.icl  an  csaehtialyui  tnf  thu  Slavd- 
aids  of  (lie  Prcsby'eridn  chuic/t.  In  thaianiile,  pro- 
vision is  made  for  a  dilferenre  of  opinion  which  may 
be  known,  and  ndniillcd,  and  tolerated  in  llie.  Pre&by- 
leries,  vvhre  that  did'cence  does  not.  amount  to  a  de- 
nial ol  what  is  "  esseniidl  ur  necssciry  in  doctrine, 
v:orshi  p , or  government  J'''  It  is  (he  inalienable  privilege 
and  right  cl  each  and  every  presbylery  to  judge  in 
this  matter;  and  this  right  is  secured  no  less  by  tlie 
consiitulion  of  the  church,  iluui  by  the  word  of  God. 
AVhether  I,  since  my  ordination,  have  violated  the  prin- 
ciples of  this  "  proviso"  i^  for  this  Presbytery  to  judge. 

6.  The  views  ul  the  Presbyterian  church  on  this 
Fubject;  ;ind  the  proper  iwtcrpreialion  of  the  Stand- 
ards, may  be  known  Irom  the  unifor*  practice  under 
iheconstitution,  for  more  than  a  century.  I  refer  here 
I'or  proof  to  the  following  circumstances  :  [«]  The 
known  character  of  the  men  who  in  1729  composed 
the  Synod,  that  adopted  the  Westminster  confession 
and  catechisms  with  tlie  proviso.  The  very  fact  that 
fucli  a  proviso  was  tiien  adoi)ted,  shows  tliai  there 
was  a  (lifl'erence  of  opinion  on  some  points  among  the 
the  ministers  of  that  time.  It  is  inconccivablethat 
eucli  an  article  should  ever  have  been  thought  of,  un- 
less there  were  some  n!ini:-terp,  or  presbyiries,  that 
cherished dilfercnces of o|>inion  in  regard  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  articles,  [b]  The  same  thing  is  appcrent, 
atid  well  known  in  re^;ird  to  the  men  who  coni[)Oscd 
tile  Synods  in  1753.  The  act  of  1729  was  the  basis  of 
that  union;  and  among  the  men  of  that  time  there 
were  material,  though  not  essential  diilerenccs  of 
opinion  oa  the  doctrines  oi"  tiic  chundi.  [c]  The  same 
thing  is  expressly  stated  to  have  been  the  practice  in 
ihe  time  of  President  Davies.  "  We  allowed"  says 
lie  "  the  candidate  to  maitnain  his  objections  againt-t 
ANY  PAKToftlie  confesfrion,  and  the  judicatures  judged 
whether  the  articles  ubjectid  to  were  issemial  to 
oanisTiANiTY  ;  and  if  they  judged  they  were  not,  they 
\'.'ould  ad.iiit  ths;  candidate,  notwithstanding  his  objet« 
lions."*  Here  it  is  evident,  that  a  very  v.ide  latitude 


♦CUrJslian  Spectator  Match  I9i5. 


22  APPENDIX. 

was  i^iven  in  the  admission  of  candidates  to  licensure 
and  ordination.  Notliin;^  which  was  not  deemed  "  es- 
sential to  Christianity"  was  regarded  asi  sullicient  lo 
exclude  him; — a  latitude  of  interpretation  certainly 
quite  as  wide  as  has  ever  heen  desired,  or  contended 
lor  in  more  modern  times.  It  show?;,  at  leaft,  theca- 
tiiolic  spirit  oi' the  founders  of  our  church;  and  in 
those  times,  larj^e  and  liberal  vn'./s  had  obtained 
in  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Standards.  He 
is  not  in  much  danger  of  error,  in  regard  to  christian 
doctrine  whose  views  accord  with  those  of  thai  illus- 
trious and  holy  man.  [d\  The  same  thing  has  been 
evinced  in  the  Cxcneral  Assembly,  with  a  very  marked 
unilormity.  In  particular,  since  llie  unliaiipy  cont.en- 
tions  in  llie  church  commenced  in  1830,  the  subject 
has  .been  in  various  ways  before  ihe  assembly,  and 
with  uniform  results.  For  four  successive  years,  de- 
cisions were  obtained,  not  immedialehj  pertaining  to 
the  doctrines  in  question  indeed,  but  of  such  a  cha- 
racter rss  to  leave  no  doubt  in  the  minds  ol  either  of 
the  parties  in  the  church,  of  what  the  di.«position  of 
the  assembly  has  been.  Perhaps  no  stronger  evidence 
of  that  disposition  could  be  given  than,  the  fact  tliat 
those  decisions  h.<ve  been  perlectly  satislactory  to 
those  in  the  churgh,  who  have  desired  a  liberal  con- 
struction of  the  constitution,  and  unscilitifactoiy  in  a 
high  degree  to  the  other  parly.  It  is  to  be  remem- 
bered tliat  the  very  docliines  in  subrilance,  ii  not  in 
fjrm,  have  been  the  subject  of  these  unhappy  conten- 
tions, and  ol  the  sucessive  decisions  of  the  General 
Assembly.  The  prosecutor  in  this  case,  does  not  pre- 
tend that  he  has  discovered  any  thing  new.  He  even 
avers  (in  his  letter)  that  the  doctrines  are  the  same; 
and  that  his  object  is  to  bring  "  those  doctrines,''^  un- 
embarrassed by  constitutional  questions,  belore  the 
assembly.  It  is  true  that  those  doctrines  have  not 
been  brought  r//rec7/7/ lefoie  tlie  assembly,  and  that 
the  iissemhiy  has  not  lormally  cxi)re6sed  an  opinion 
on  them.  But  the  case  is  now  relit'rred  to  [1]  because 
it  shows  the  strong  disinclination  of  the  assembly  to 
make  them  the  subject  of  discij)line,  or  in  other  words 
their  inclination  to  allov:  the  usual  latitude  ol  inter- 
pretation, and  [2j  because  in  the  only  case  where 
those  doctrines  did,  in  any  lorm  come  before  the  as- 
eembly  (in  1831.)  the  assembly  decided  that  after  the 
explanation  which  had  been  given,  ol"  the  objection- 
able passages  in  the  sermon  ("the  way  of  salvation") 
'■  the  presbytery  ought  to  have  sudered  the  whole  to 
t)ac!s  without  larther  notice."  Minutes  vol.  vii.  p.  180. 
This  case  shows,  that  the  a.'-semhly  in  accordance 
with  the  large  and  catholic  spirit  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  I'rom  its  origin  in  this  country,  is  elil!  disposed 
to  allow  a  liberal  construction  of  ile  articlt  s,ai.d  to 


APPENDIX.  23 

lunintain  a  spirit  in  accordance  with  i(.s(ormrr  history, 
and  with  the.  present  a<^e.  For  more  than  a  century, 
orremarkablc  jjrosperity,  tiiat  spirit  has  been  evinced. 
It  remains  to  he  seen  whether  now,  and  in  this  pres- 
bytery, the  spirit  wliich  has  so  long,  and  hap|)iiy  "  cha- 
racterized tlie  Presbyterian  churcli  is  to  bearrested- 
and  a  new  career  to  be  commenced  under  ditleren- 
auspices,  and  with  a  purpose  to  place  every  man  on 
(he  bed  of  Procrustes.  Hitherto  iti  the  history  ol'man, 
it  has  been  an  unwise  experi.nent  to  endeavor  to 
shape  man's  belief  by  authority  ;  to  cramp  the  free- 
dom of  enquiry  by  ecclesiastical  decisions;  and  to 
suppose  that  those  decisions  can  lonjj  avail  to  breast 
the  fjpirit  of  investigation,  or  to  prevent  larjie  and  li- 
beral views  of  christian  doctrine.  The  Presbyterian 
church  has  for  more  than  a  century,  maintained  a  cha- 
racter eminently  lilieral  and  catholic.  Strongly  attach- 
ed indeed  to  her  doctrines,  yet  she  has  looked  wiihan 
eyeofkindnesson  those  who  differed  from  her  in  views, 
and  has  ever  been  disposed  to  co-operate  with  them 
in  all  great  plans  of  Christian  benevolence.  It  is  a 
striking  circumstance  also,  that  in  1801  the  General 
Assembly  originated  and  proposed  a  plan  of  union  de- 
signed to  produce  peace,  in  regard  to  the  congrega- 
tional churches  that  had  been  formed,  and  that  were 
rapidly  forming  in  the  new  settlements  of  this  coun- 
try— a  plan  that  was  cordially  acceded  to.  Yet  that 
plan  was  to  introduce  into  the  Presbyterian  church 
d"  they  chose  to  enter  it,  ministers,  and  private  mem  - 
bers  trained  in  the  schools  of  New  England  theology  ; 
holding  the  same  views,  substantially,  which  are  now 
held  on  the  subject  of  the  atonements  and  of  imputa- 
tion, and  of  human  ability  ;  and  for  more  than  thirty 
years  that  pjan  has  been  acted  on,  to  the  manifest  ad- 
vantage of  t^he  whole  Presbyterian  church.  I  refer 
to  it,  as  an  i  nstance  of  the  large,  and  liberal  spirit 
which  the  Presbyterian  church  has  been  disposed  in 
all  Its  history,  until  these  unhappy  times,  to  follow.  A 
■party  in  this  church,  in  violation  of  its  general  spirit, 
demands  tha^  the  course  should  be  now  abandoned.^ 
But  the  mo  mnt  this  is  done,  one  bright  feature  of 
this  church  is  obscured.  It  travels  bdckward,  even 
in  the  nineteenth  century,  towards  the  regions  of 
night;  and  the  result  would  be  that  its  strength 
would  be  gone,  and  its  beauty  lost  forever. 

7.  My  views  of  this  whole  subject  cannot  be  better 
expressed  than  in  the  words  of  the  Biblical  Reper- 
tory, in  an  extract  which  I  beg  leave  to  read.  (Bib. 
Rep.  vol.  iii.  521,  522,  523. 

"  The  great  dividing  question  is,  how  is  the  subscription  o*" 
assent  to  our  standards  to  be  interpreted?  Or  with  what  de- 
gree of  strictness  is  the  phrase,  'system  of  doctrines,'  as  il  oc- 
curs in  the  ordination  service,  to  be  explained?    On  this  sub- 


24  APPENDIX. 

j2Ct,  which  is  one  of  vital  impirtancp,  there  are,  if  wc  do  not 
misiiiki',  two  cxireiiws  rqiially  to  be  lamented.  On  ihe  one 
hand,  tlicrc  are  some  who  seem  inclined  ii>  give  the  phrase  in 
question  such  a  latitude  that  any  one,  who  holds  the  great 
furidn  mental  ddctrines  of  ihe  gospel,  as  they  are  recognized  by 
all  evangelical  doiiominations,  might  adopt  it ;  while  on  the 
other,  some  are  di-pused  lo  interpret  it  so  stricily  as  to  make 
it  not  only  involve  ihe  adoption  i>l"  all  the  docirincs  contained 
in  itie  coiifussion,  but  to  preclude  all  diversity  in  the  manner  of 
receiving  and  explainino;  them.  They  arc  therefore  disposed 
to  regard  ih'se  who  do  not  in  this  sense  adopt  the  coniession 
of  faith,  and  who  yet  remain  in  the  church,  as  guilty  of  a 
great  departure  from  moral  honesty.  This  we  ihiiik  an  ex- 
treme, and  a  mischievous  one.  Because  it  lends  to  the  im- 
peachment of  the  character  of  many  upright  men,  and  be- 
cause its  application  would  split  ihe  church  into  innumerable 
fragments.  That  it  is  an  exiremp,  we  thmk  is  apparent, 
from  the  following  considerations  :  It  is  making  the  terms  of 
subscription  imply  more  than  {liiey  liierally  import.  Two 
men  may,  with  tqual  sincerity,  profess  to  btlieve  a  docirine, 
or  sysiem  of  doctrines,  and  yet  diHer  in  the  mode  of  under- 
standing and  e.xplaiiiing  them.  2.  Such  a  degree  of  uniform- 
ity never  was  exacted,  and  never  has  existed.  The  confes- 
sion, as  framed  liy  the  Westminster  divines,  was  an  ackriow- 
ledged  compromise  between  two  classes  of  theologians. 
When  adopted  by  the  Prtsbyieiian  church  in  ihis  country, 
it  was  with  the  disiinct  understanding  that  the  mode  of  sub- 
Ecription  did  not  imply  strict  unilorm.iy  of  views.  And  frora 
that  time  to  this,  there  has  been  an  open  and  avowed  diversi- 
ty of  opinion,  on  many  points,  among  those  who  adopted 
the  confession  of  laith,  without  leading  to  the  suspicion  of  in- 
sincerity, or  dishonesty.  3.  Ii  is  clearly  impossible  that  any 
considerable  number  of  men  can  be  brought  to  conlorm  so 
exactly  in  their  views,  as  to  be  able  to  adopt  such  an  extend- 
ed formula  of  doctrine  precisely  in  the  same  sense. 

"llie  very  terms,  'system  of  doctriiu-s,'  conveys  a  definite 
idea — tiie  idea  of  a  regular  series  of  connected  opinions,  hav- 
ing a  mutual  relaiion,  and  constituting  one  whole.  In  pro- 
fessing to  adopt  the  system  of  doctrines  taught  in  the  Sacred 
Sciiptures,  a  man  proicsses  to  believe  the  whole  seiits  of  doc- 
trines taught  in  that  system,  in  opposition  to  every  other. 
Thai  is,  he  profts.~es  to  believe  the  whole  series  of  doctrines 
which  go  to  make  up  the  Ualvinistic  system,  in  opposition  to 
the  Socinian,  Pelagian,  Semi-Pelagian,  Arminian,  or  any 
other  opposite  and  inconsistent  view  of  Christianiiy.  These 
doctrines  are  clearly  express  d  ;  such  as  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  the  incarnation  and  supreme  deity  of  Christ,  the  fall 
and  original  sin,  aion.  ment,  justification  by  faith,  personal 
election,  eflbctual  calling,  perseverance  of  the  saints,  eternal 
punishment  of  the  wicked,  &c.  Now,  every  man  who  ex 
animo  and  bona  fide  believes  an  these  doctrines,  does,  accord- 
ing to  the  correct  interpretation  of  language,  hold  the  'system 
of  doctrines'  contained  in  the  confession  of  faith.  And  ws 
think,  so  long  as  this  is  done,  we  are  safe.  VViih  respect  to 
each  of  these  several  points,  there  are,  and  may  safely  he, 
various  modes  of  statement  and  explanation  consistent  with 


APPENDIX.  25 

their  sincere  reception.  Thus,  with  regard  to  the  Trinity, 
Bome  may  be  able  to  adopt  every  expression  found  in  the 
Nicene  creed,  or  in  Bishop  Bull's  exposition  of  i;,  while  others 
may  feel  a  strong  repugnance  to  many  of  its  phrases,  and 
yet  adopt  evdry  idea  essentia!  to  the  doctrine.  And  thus,  too, 
m  relation  to  the  vicarious  atoiieinent  of  .Fesus  (Jliristj  some 
may  adopt  the  strict  quid  pro  quo  system  ;  others,  the  infinite 
value  theory  ;  oiher:<,  that  of  universal  applicability  ;  and  yet 
nil  hold  the  doctrine  itself.  But  ♦  ♦  the  presbytery  lias  a  light 
of  judgment  in  all  such  cases.  ♦  ♦  ♦  It  is  their  business  to  de- 
cide this  very  point,  whether  the  candidate  believes  or  not 
the  doctrines  of  our  standards,  and  they  are  under  the  tnoet 
Bolemn  engagements  to  (iod  and  the  brethren  to  do  thi« 
honestly.    And  here  the  matter  must  be  left." 

In  the  examination  of  these  charges,    however,  it 
will   bo  my   object  to  show  that  there  is  no  real  tle- 

Sarture  IVotn  the  syst  fu  in  the  standnrds,  in  the 
fotes  on  the_  Romans.  A  part  of  those  charges,  I 
shall  show,  pertain  iriore.'y  to  philosophy  ,  a  part  are 
irrelevant,  on  which  the  confession  liiid  dt-ciiicd  no- 
thing ;  a  part  arise  from  misconstruction  of  my  lan- 
guage ;  t  part  accuse  me  of  heresy,  in  holding  the 
very  expressions  ol  tne  Bible  ;  a  part  depend  on  dis- 
tinctions which  the  Bible  and  the  confession  do  not 
make;  a  part  consists  of  a  statement  of  a  doctrine 
which  i  do  hold,  and  an  inlerence  which  I  do  not 
hold,  wherein  the  inference  is  charged  as  heretical; 
a  part  are  based  on  my  rejection  of  certain  terms  and 
phrases  which  are  not  in  the  Bible,  and  which  are 
not  necessary  to  the  "<system  of  doctrine"  in  the  con- 
fession oftaith  ;  and  a  part  charge  me  with  heresy  in 
regard  to  doctrines  which  have  been  held  in  the 
ciiurch  from  the  beginning.  In  examining  this  some- 
what peculiar  and  irregular  system  of  charges — if 
they  can  be  reduced  to  a  system — I  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  ask  the  patience  of  the  presbytery,  that  I  may 
present  the  true  nature  of  the  case  before  them.  1 
would  ob.serve  here,  that  1  have  been  subjected  to 
»?reat  perplexities  and  embarrassment,  by  the  man- 
ner  in  which  Dr.  J.  has  thought  ii  his  duty  to  bring 
these  charges.  Besides  the  embarrassed  atid  undi- 
gested nature  of  the  charges  themselves,  the  mode 
in  which  ihey  are  presented  to  me  is  exceedingly  per- 
plexing. He  first  furnished  the  presbytery  with  a 
eet  of  charges  with  reference  to  the  na;.,es  ot  my 
book,  but  without  a?ii/  references  to  tlic  uandardsof 
the  church  or  the  Scriptures  supposed  by  liim  to  bo 
vioLited.  This  was  evidenily  contrary  to  the  consti- 
tution of  the  church,  as  expounded  by  ihe  Cr-  neral 
Assembly  in  1824  '.vol.  v.  p.  219).  He  sub.'sequently, 
in  a  privste  comniuairation — noi  througk  the  prcsby-^ 
lery,  and  of  course  of  noauihorny — .sent  me  a  list  of 
references  to  the  articles  in  the  constitution  supposed 
10  be  violated,  and  with  references  to  the  Ltook  on 
3 


t6  APPENDIX. 

ascount  of  which  I  am  arraigned,  materially  dikfeb- 
ENTfrom  that  which  I  had  received  ihrougli  the  pres- 
bytery. In  this  perplexity,  the  only  injertnce  which 
I  could  draw  from  the  suhject,  wu8  in  accordance 
with  the  one  which  forced  itself  on  the  mind  when 
the  charges  were  prct^eiued,  that  the  whole  subjeci 
was  undigested  in  Dr.  J.'s  mind,  and  unarrayed  ;  and 
the  only  resolution  which  could  be  formed  by  me,  was 
to  adiiere  almost  entirely  to  the  original  referencea 
which  were  put  into  my  hands  by  the  presbytery. 
Charge  I. 

The  first  charge  is  in  the  lollowing  words: 

"That  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action." 

Proof  1st.  Notes  on  Romans,  p.  249.  "In  all  this,  and  in 
all  other  sin,  man  is  voluntary." 

Proot  2d.  Same  work,  p.  123.  "There  is  no  reason  to  be- 
heve  that  they  [men]  are  condemned  to  eternal  death,  or  held 
to  be  guilty  of  his  sin  [meaning  Adam's  sinj  without  partici- 
pation, of  their  own,  or  without  personal  sin,  any  more  than 
that  they  are  approved  by  the  work  of  Christ,  or  held  to  be 
personally  deserving,  without  embracing  his  ofler,  and  re- 
ceiving him  as  a  Savior." 

PreofSd,  p.  192.  "They  [Jacob  and  Esau]  had  done  no- 
thing good  or  bud,  and  where  that  is  the  case  there  can  be  no 
character,  for  character  is  iheresult  of  conduct. 

(2)  That  the  period  of  moral  agency  had  not  yet  commen- 
ced." 

Proof  4,  p.  124.  "As  the  work  of  Christ  does  not  benefit 
the  race  unless  it  is  embraced,  so  does  not  the  reasoning  of 
the  Apiistle  lead  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  deed  of  Adam 
does  not  condemn,  unless  there  be  tome  voluntary  acton  the 
part  of  each  individual'!" 

Proof  5,  p  118.  "  Men  will  not  be  held  guilty,  unless  there 
is  a  law  which  binds  them,  of  which  they  are  apprised,  and 
■which  they  voluntarily  trans-gress." 

That  this  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  will  appear,  by  referring  to  Confession  of 
Faith,  chap.  vi.  5.  "This  corruption  of  nature,  during  this 
life,  doth  remain  in  those  that  are  regenerated  ;  and  a! though 
it  be  through  Clirist  pardoned  and  mortified,  yet  both  itsdf, 
and  all  ihv  vwiions  thereof  arc  truly  and  properly  sin,''  (i. 
"Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression 
of  the  righteous  law  of  God,  and  contrary  thereunto,  doth  in 
its  own  nature,  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  is 
bound  over  IJ  the  wratn  ol  God  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so 
made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiritual,  temporal 
and  eternal."     Lar.  Cat.  Ques.  27;  Shorter  Cat.  19,  Con.  ix., 

The  only  statements  which  can  be  supposed  to 
have  a  bearing  on  the  suhject,  occur  on  pp.  249  and 
192.  In  the  former,  thi.s  pa.ssage  occurs:  "In  all 
this,  and  in  all  other  sin,  man  is  voluntary.  He 
chooses  his  course  of  evil,  and  God  is  under  no  obli- 
gation to  compel  him  to  do  otherwise."  In  regard  to 
this  passage,  1  observe  :  [1.]  That  its  design  was  not 
10  teach  any  thing  about  the  doctrine  of  what  is  com- 


APPENDIX.  27 

monly  called  original  sin,  or  hereditary  depravity. 
It  has  no  refereiice  to  the  native  disposition,  or  ten- 
dency oi'  our  nature.  Its  object  is  simply  to  teach 
that  man  is  voluntary  in  sin,  ni  opposiiion  to  the  doc- 
trine ihat  he  iscompelled.  This  is  the  manileet  dcope 
ofthe  passage,  as  is  evident,  indeed,  from  tlie  part 
repeated  here.  It  occurs  in  a  comment  on  ch.  xi.  32: 
*'  God  hath  concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,"  «&,c.  and 
the  scope  of  the  comment,  wliich  has  relerence  not  to 
infants,  but  to  adults,  i?  to  show  that  the  word  "  con- 
cluded" does  not  imply  that  God  uses  any  compulsion 
to  make  them  irject  the  gospel,  but  that  they  arc 
voluntary  in  lioiug  it.  And  in  this  connexion,  the 
remark  occurs,  luai  in  all  sin  man  is  voluntary.  (2.) 
This  is  the  very  .'loctrine  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  ; 
ch.  ix.  §  1 :  "  God  hath  endued  the  willof  man  with 
that  natural  liberty,  that  it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by 
any  absolute  necessity  of  nature,  determined  to  gooa 
or  EVIL."  To  maintain  the  very  doctrine  ol  the  Con- 
iession,  assuredly  is  not  heresy.  (3.)  It  is  the  undoubt- 
ed doctrineof  the  Scriptures,  that  man  is  not  compel- 
led to  do  evil.  For  in  the  following  places  it  is  either 
expressly  taught,  or  miplied  :  1  Jolui  iii.  4 :  "  Sin  is 
the  transgression  ofthe  law." — James  i.  13:  "The 
Lord  is  not  tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempteth  he 
any  man." — Deut.  xxx.  19,  John  v.  40. — The  doctrine 
that  man  is  voluntary  in  sin,  or  is  a  free  agent,  is  ma- 
nifest from  all  the  ihreatenings  of  God  which  forbid  it, 
for  God  would  not  forbid  that  which  is  involuntary  ; 
from  all  his  entreaties  and  commands  to  forsake  it; 
from  all  his  injunctions  to  choose  lile;  and  from  all 
the  motives  which  are  presented  in  the  Bible  to  in- 
duce men  to  abandon  it.  If  it  were  not  so,  and  if 
men  were  compelled  to  the  course  lor  which  they  are 
condemned  and  punished,  it  would  be  a  violation  of 
all  our  viewsol'freedom,  and  of  just  government.  No 
dpfinitioQ  of  tyranny  could  be  njore  exact  and  precise 
than  would  be  involved  in  that  doctrine;  and  the  hu- 
man mind  and  heart,  and  all  God's  requirements  and 
dealings  even  the  world  would  revolt  against  it. 
My  plea  to  //tjs  passage,  therefore,  Is,  that  I  did  mean 
to  teach  that  man  is  voluntary  in  his  sin,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  doctrine  ulticti  would  teach  that  he  is 
compelled  against  his  ^cill,  and  that  this  is  the  ex- 
press doctrine  o(  the  Confession  of  Faith,  of  the  Bible, 
and  of  common  sense. 

The  only  other  passage  which  is  suprosed  to  sus- 
tain this  charge,  which  has  any  conceivable  refer- 
ence to  it,  occurs  on  p.  192.  The  desisn  or  scope  of 
this  comment  was  to  explain  the  expression  in  re- 
gard to  Jacob  and  Esau  ;  "  neither  having  done  any 
jjood  or  evil." — Rom.  ix.  Jl.  The  object  there  was 
10  show  that  the  apostle  taught  that  the  purpose,  or 
electing  design  ot  God,  was  laid  antccedejU  to  thQ 


28  APPENDIX. 

formation  of  thoir  moral  character.  Tlie  affirmation 
of  the  apostle  if,  that  they  had  done  nothing  good  or 
bad.  And  a?!  character  is  the  resu't  ol  conduct,  it  is 
laupposed  thai  the  apoatle  meant  to  teach  that  the 
elcctin<j  purpo-eofGod,  in  re^ar  I  to  them,  was  ante- 
cedent  lo  any  such  acts  as  could  form  a  chdracler,  or 
a  basis  Irom  their  character,  on  the  ground  ol  which 
he  would  choose  one  and  rejt'Ct  the  other.  This  is 
believtd  still  to  Iv.  the  correct  interpretation  of  the 
passajre.  When  it  is  s^iid  thai  the  passasre  proves 
that  "  as  yet  they  had  no  moral  ciiaracttT,"  the  word 
character,  and  the  sense  in  which  it  is  u.<5Pd,  is  imme- 
diately explained  lo  mean  "the  result  ol  conduct;" 
nnd  the  idea  which  is  to  be  derived  from  this  expres- 
sion is  to  be  interpreted  by  the  definition  which  1  had 
a  ri^ht  to  S've,  and  to  s-ive  which,  violates  no  article 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Whether  I  am  rii;ht  in 
that  definition,  is  another  question  ;and  one  which  it 
does  not  fall  vvithin  the  province  ol  the  Presl^lery  lo 
decide.  1  am  sustained  in  it,  however,  by  the  com- 
mon use  of  lan^uaire  anions  men,  and  by  the  best 
lexicoi'raphers.  Webster  eayo,  "  u  character  is  not 
formed,  when  the  person  has  not  acquired  stable  and 
distinctive  qualities."  The  idea  which  I  wisaed  to 
convey,  is,  that  character  is  that  by  which  a  nian  in 
marked,  or  known,  hy  the  manileslation  of  some  qua- 
lity, disposiiion,  or  act,  which  serves  to  distiiifruish 
him  from  others.  This  idea  is  still  supposed  to  be 
correct ;  and  the  sentiment  which  I  wished  to  convey 
was,  that  the  apostle  tau;?ht  that  Jacob  and  Esau 
had  not  Ibrmed  such  a  character,  by  doing  any  tiling-, 
("  neither  havinij  done  any  good  or  evil")  as  to  be 
the  basis  of  the  electinjr  purpose  ofGoxl. 

This  idea  is  charged  lo  be  a  violation  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Confession,  on  the  subject  of  the  native 
propensity  of  mm,  in  ihe  following  places:  Conf.  ch. 
vi.  §5,  6;Lar.  Cat.  Q,.27;  Sh.  ly ;  Con.  ch.  ix.  §3, 
4,  X.  1,  11. 

My  re|jly  to  this  is:, (I.)  That  I  regard  the  exposi- 
tion, in  Its  scope  and  design,  as  the  correct  one;  and 
if  ao,  and  ilit  cannot  be  shown  to  be  false,  it  cannot 
be  heresy.  (2  )  A  man's  words  and  writings  arc,  by 
tjne  of  the  mor^*  obvious  rules  of  interpretalion,  to  be 
explained  in  accordance  with  the  general  scope  and 
de-ign.  Nothing  is  more  obviously  fair  and  proper, 
in  interpreting  a  man's  language,  than  this  rule.  (3.) 
My  re. narks  on  this  passa^.'  e  were  designed  to  be  con- 
fined to  the  specific  case,  and  not  to  bear  on  other 
passages  of  Scripture  which  might  relate  to  some 
otherV^oint  of  doctrine.  (4.)  In  the  comment  itself, 
this  d  siirn  is  expressly  staled,  and  it  is  affirmed  that 
the  apo.slle  did  not  m.ike  anj-  ujimiatiun  about  their 
propensity  to  evil,  but  thai  they  nad  not  actually con^^ 
mitted  sin.    "  This  affirmation  respectins  Jacob  anU 


APPENDIX.  29 

jEsau  does  not  prove,"  I  say,  in  tfie  note  on  the  place, 
"  that  they  had  not  a  nature  inclined  to  evil,  or  a  cor- 
rupt and  sensual  propensity  ;  or  that  iliey  would  not 
ein  as  soon  as  they  became  moral  agrents.  It  proves 
merely  that  they  had  not  yet  committed  actual  sin." 
(5.)  In  tliis  pa^fsage,  I  have  taught  the  very  doctrine 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  on  the  subject  of  man's 
propensity,  or  tendency  to  evil,  or  what  in  the  Con- 
fession is  called  "  original  corruption."  Thus,  p.  192, 
it  is  said,  ''That  they,  as  well  as  all  others,  would 
certainly  sin  as  soon  as  they  conmiitted  moral  acts 
at  all.  is  proved  every  where  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures." It  is,  therefore,  a  most  unhappy  reference  to 
this  place,  to  prove  the  charge  which  is  now  alleged 
against  me.  (6.)  The  opinions  of  atf' author  can  be 
best  learned,  by  a  comparison  of  one  part  of  his  book 
with  another  ;  and  to  make  such  a  comparison  is  con- 
ceded one  ol  I  he  common  laws  of  exegesis  in  ex- 
plaining the  Bible,  and  all  other  books.  In  accord- 
ance with  the  views  expressed  in  the  case  of  Jacob 
and  Esau,  that  "  they  would  sm  as  soon  as  they 
committed  moral  acts  at  all,"  I  refer  to  the  following 
places,  as  being  an  explanation,  and  confirmation  of 
that  view,  almost  in  the  very  words  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  pp.  122,  123.  In  like  manner — 
"  tlioush  men  are  indubitably  affected  by  t!ie  sin 
of  Adam,  as  e.  g.  by  being  born  with  a  corrupt  dis- 
position; with  loss  of  righteousness,  icilh  subjec- 
tion to  pain  and  wo,  yet  there  is  no  evidence,"  &c. 
P.  101 :  "Since  human  nature  icas  depraved,  and 
men  prone  to  sin,^^  &,c.  P.  117:  "The  tiposile  does 
nor,  in  this  expression,  say  that  all  have  sinned  in 
Adam,  or  that  their  nature  has  become  corrupt, 
which  is  true,^^  &c. 

The  pica  which  I  therefore  urge,  in  regard  to  this 
charge,  is,  that  in  the  passages  referred  to,  I  have 
given  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  apostle's  mean- 
ing, and  that,  in  doing  so,  I  have  maintained  precise- 
ly, and  almost  toiidem  verbis,  the  doctrines  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith. 

I  might  add  to  this,  that  whatever  may  be  the  truth 
on  the  subject,  it  is  a  mere  metaphysical  inquiry, 
which  ihe  Confession  of  Faith  it  is  not  to  be  presu- 
med to  have  settled  ;  and  which  it  certainly  has  not 
attempted  to  determine.  And  even  had  there  been 
any  views  expressed  on  the  subject,  on  one  side  or 
on  the  other,  to  hold  or  deny  them  cannot  be  con- 
strued into  the  high  crime  of  heresy. 

Whatever  ground  of  objection  there  might  be  s?<p- 
posed  to  exist  to  the  passages  as  they  originally  stood 
in  the  Notes  on  Romanes,  arising  from  any  ambi- 
guity of  phrase,  it  is  believed  that  the  cause  is  now 
removed,  by  a  change  in  the  phraseology  which  haa 
o 


9b 


APPENDIX. 


been  made  in  the  new  edition.  The  passage  novr 
reads  thus  :  "  This  ia  a  vsry  important  passage  in  rc- 
grard  to  the  question  about  the  purposes  of  Gud.  (1-) 
They  had  done  nothing  good  or  bad,  and  where  that 
is  the  case,  there  can  l)e,  properly  spo.akinjr,  no  moral 
character,  for  a  character  i^  not  formed,  where  a 
person  has  not  acquired  stable  and  distinctive  quali- 
ties."— lyebster. 

Charf^e  II. 

The  second  charge  is  in  these  words  : 

"That  Adam  (before  and  after  his  fall)  was  ignorant  of  his 
moral  relations  to  such  a  degree,  that  he  did  not  know  the 
onsequences  of  .his  sin  would  or  should  reach  any  further, 
than  lo  natural  d^'th." 

Proof  1.  NotOfjTllS.  "If  an  inquiry  be  made  here,  how 
Adam  would  uiidersland  this,  [the  thrcatenina;  of  death  ;]  I 
reply  thatwc  have  no  reason  to  think  he  would  understand 
jl  as  reftrrin^  to  any  thing  more  than  the  loss  of  life  as  an  ex- 
pression of  the  displi'asure  of  God.  Moses  does  not  intimate 
that  he  was  learmd  in  the  nature  of  laws  and  penalties,  and 
his  narrative  would  lead  us  to  suppose  thai  this  was  ail  that 
would  occur  to  Adam.  And  indeed  there  is  the  highest  evi- 
dence the  case  admits  of,  that  this  was  his  understanding  of 
it.  For  in  the  account  of  the  injliction  of  the  penalty,  a/Ur 
the  law  was  violated,  in  God's  ovvn  interpretation  of  it,  in  Gen. 
iii.  19,  there  is  still  no  reference  to  any  thing  further.  "Dust 
thou  art  and  unto  dust  thou  shall  return."  Now  it  is  incre- 
dible that  Adam  should  have  understood  this  as  referring  to 
what  has  been  called  "spiritual  death"  and  to  "eternal 
death,"  when  neither  in  the  threat  ning,  nor  in  the  account 
of  the  infliciion  of  the  sentence,  is  there  the  slightest  recorded 
reference  to  it.  Men  have  done  great  injury  in  the  cause  of 
correct  interpretation,  by  carrying  their  notions  of  doctrinal 
subjects  to  the  explanation  of  words  qiid  phrases  in  the  Old 
Testament.  They  have  usually  (iescnbed  Adam  as  endowed 
with  all  the  refinement,  and  possessed  of  all  the  knowledge, 
and  adorned  with  ail  the  metaphysical  acumen  and  subtlety 
of  a  modern  theologian.  They  nave  deemed  him  qualifiea» 
in  the  very  infancy  of  the  world,  to  uiidirstand  and  discuss 
questions  which,  under  all  the  light  of  the  Christian  revela- 
tMMi,  siill  perplex  and  emoarrass  the  human  mind.  After 
these  accounts  of  the  endowmenls  of  Ad^ini,  which  occupy  so 
large  a  spece  in  the  bojks  of  lhe.>logy,  one  is  surprised,  on 
opening  the  Bible,  to  find  how  unlike  all  this  is  to  the  simple 
atatenient  in  Genesi.i.  And  the  wonder  cannot  be  suppress- 
ed that  men  should  describe  the  obvious  infancy  oi  the  race 
as  superior  to  its  iiightst  advancement ;  or  that  \\\e  first  man, 
just  created,  just  looking  upon  a  world  of  wjnder.-',  unac- 
quainted with  law,  and  moral  relations,  and  the  cfl.-ei  of 
transgres^l.)Il,  shou  d  be  represented  ;is  endowed  wi:h  know- 
ledge which  four  ihoiifnrid  years  af  erwards  it  rtquueo  the 
advent  of  the  Son  of  God  to  cu.uinanicate." 

How  c  I'Urary  i!i  alt  uiia  to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian chun  h  will  appear,  hv  rd'erring  to  Con.  chap.  iv.  i;  i^ar. 
Cat.  17,  2U,  22;  Snorter  Cat.  12. 


APPENDIX.  St 

In  rejjard  to  this  charge,  I  Bubmit  to  the  Presbyte- 
ry the  iullowins"  rcmiirks,  as  my  delV.nce  : 

It  is  not  intended  to  deny  tiMt  the  death  which  was 
threatened  to  Adam,  and  which  actually  comes  upon 
men,  as  a  viohitioii  of  tiie  law  ol  God  involve!?  eter- 
nal death,  nniess  man  is  redeemed.  This  is  fully  and 
expressly  stated  in  Notes,  p.  U6: 

The  passage  buforc  (Rom.  v.)  shows  in  what  sense  he  (tha 
apostle)  intended  to  use  the  word  (death).  In  his  argument 
it  stands  oppyscd  to  "  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  gractt" 
(ver.  15),  to  "justification  by  the  forgiveness  of  "many  of- 
fences" (vcr.  16);  to  the  reign  of  ihe  redeemed  in  eternal  life 
(ver  17);  and  tj  "justification  of  life"  (ver.  18).  To  all  these, 
the  words  death  (ver.  12,  17),  and  judgment  (ver.  16, 18),  stand 
oppos.  d.  It  cannot  be  that  the  tvils  involved  in  the  wor  's 
"death,"  "judgment,"  &c.  relate  simply  to  teniporul  death. 
The  evident  meaning  is,  that  the  ward  ■acaib.,''  us  here  used 
by  the  apostle,  refers  to  the  train  of  evils  \.  hich  have  been 
introduced  by  sin.  Iido>.^s  not  mean  simply  temporal  death, 
but  that  group  and  collection  of  woes,  includrng  temporal 
death,  condemnalion,  and  exposure  to  eternal  death,  which 
is  the  co.isequence  of  transgression.  Tnc  apostle  often  uses 
the  word  dealh  and  to  die  in  ihis  wide  sense.  Rom.  i.  'd'Z  ;  vi. 
16,31;  vii.  5,  10,  U,  24  j  viii.  2,  6,  13:  2  Cor.  xi.  16;  viii. 
10 :  Heb.  xi.  14;  &.c. 

The  statement  which  is  made  in  the  passage  on 
which  the  charge  of  heresy  is  based,  is  obvious  in  its 
meaning.  It  was  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that 
Adam  was  in  the  infancy  ol  society,  that  he  had  had 
no  opportunity  of  observing  the  etleci  ol  transgres- 
sion ;  that  teKiporal  death  would  be  likely  to  be  that 
which  vvotild  suggest  itself  to  his  mind  at  the  threat- 
ening ;  that  there  is  no  e  /idence  that  he  was  acquaint- 
ed with  all  the  eli'ects  of  his  sin ;  and  that  the  account 
wiiich  is  usually  given  of  iiim  in  the  books  of  theolo- 
gy is  not  sustained,  by  any  evidence  which  is  fur- 
nished in  the  Bible.     This  is  ciiarged  as  heresy. 

If  1  should  be  asked  why  this  statement  was  made, 
I  would  o.iserve  [a. J  that  it  is  b.  cause  it  seemed  to 
me  to  be  sustained  by  the  account  in  the  Bible  ;  and 
[b.]  because  the  ascription  of  e.xtraorilinary  endow- 
ments to  Adam  is  so  often  ituide  in  theological  books, 
and  enters  so  materially  into  the  systems  oiinany  wri- 
ters, as  it  seems  to  me  wi'hout  auth  rity.  It  is  indeed 
a  matter  of  mere  specular ioa,  having  no'hing  to  do 
directly  with  orthodoxy,  or  heresy  ;  but  I  may  be  al- 
lowed here  to  refer  to  some  'd  the  older  theoloiriral 
writers  in  regard  to  the  extraordinary  endowmentai 
of  Adam.  Morerialtirni.i  that  "  Adam  was  perlectiy 
skilled  in  the  sciences,  etuecially  in  astrology,  several 
curious  secrets  of  which  he  lintl  taught  his  children." 
According  to  Josei  has.  Moreri  iidds,  "Adam  en- 
graved the  ol  sjrvaii  >"- h  ;  had  made  on  the  course 
ol  tiie  stars  on  two  d.flereat  tables."    '"  Cajetan  haa 


32  APPENDIX. 

been  very  much  ceasured,"  says  Bayle,  "  for  not  al- 
bwin^  liima  perl'ect  knovvle(Jge  of  the  planets  and  the 
elements."  "  It  is  asserted,"  he  adds,  "  thattliespe- 
ciilative  understanding?  of  the  first  man  was  inlbrmed 
with  all  tiiu  phiiosopliical  and  mathematical  know- 
ledge which  the  human  mind  is  naturally  capable  of 
attaining  ;  and  that  his  practical  understandinfif  was 
endued  with  a  consummate  ^irudencc  in  regard  to 
a  man's  conduct  in  all  thincrs,  whether  in  pubhc  or 
private  lile  ;  and  besides  this,  all  the  moral  sciences, 
and  liberal  arts,  as  rhetoric,  poetry,  painting,  sculp- 
ture, husbandry,  writi.ig,  &.c."  Suidas  says  of  Adam 
"  that  he  distinctly  knew  and  clearly  explained  all  the 
dili'erences  of  the  seeds  and  plants  ;  the  virtues  of  the 
several  roots  and  herbs,  and  whatever  else  nature  had 
appointed  to  every  animal  for  their  subsistence,  or 
cure.  That  he  examined  all  things,  and  prescribed 
them  their  exact  rules  and  bounds.  The  arts,  sci- 
ences, learnins:  both  liberal  and  illiberal ;  prophecies, 
sacrifices,  and  lustrations  ;  the  written  and  unwrit- 
ten laws;  the  several  institutions,  and  every  thing 
that  is  necessary  and  commodious  to  lif^,  all  these 
were  his  invention."  See  Bayle  Art.  Adam.  And 
as  a  specimen  of  the  ease  and  conhdence  with  which 
men  are  f'ccws^omef/ to  speak  of  the  remarkable  en- 
dowments of  Adam,  even  where  the  Bible  has  said 
nothing,  I  may  be  permitted  to  read  an  extract  on  the 
subject  Irom  a  review  of  my  Notes  in  the  Biblical 
Repertory,  vol.  vii.,  p.  299.  In  that  review,  the  writer 
—  who  is  unknown  to  me— has  fell  himself  at  liberty  to 
speak  as  if  he  had  been  familiar  with  Adam,  with  hia 
Uselings,  and  views,  and  anticipations,  as  if  it  were  all 
perfectly  revealed  in  the  Bible,  and  without  any  ex- 
pression or  mark  oi'  hesitancy  or  doubt.  Thus  he 
says  "  what  Adam  understood  and  felt  was,  that  if 
he  transgressed  he  should  incur  the  disapprobation  of 
God.  This  was  the  evil,  and  the  dreadful  evil  ;  the 
sum  and  essence  of  all  punishment.  He  felt  that 
transsrrcssion  would  suspend  his  friendly  and  delight- 
ful intercourse  with  God,  which  was  the  life  of  hia 
soul;  that  it  would  separate  him  from  his  Maker, 
which  is  spiritual  death,"  &c.  Now  that  Adam  really 
felt  and  understood  all  this.  I  am  by  no  means  prepa- 
red to  deny,  but  the  question  inslanily  arises,  how 
came  this  known  to  the  reviewer  ?  How  did  he  be- 
come so  intimate  with  the  feelings  of  Adam  ?  The 
familiarity  and  intimate  connection  which  many  men 
seem  to  have  had  with  Adam,  cannot  but  be  a  matter 
of  surprise. 

The  vindication  of  my  statement  will  be  contained 
ia  the  following  remarks  : 

(1.)  The  statement  which  I  have  made,  as  far  as  I 
knew,  accords  with  the  account  in  the  Scriptures, 
Gen.  i.  27,  ii.  16,  17,  19,  20.    I   have  not  denied    to 


AFFENDIX.  3S 

Adam  the  possepion  of  holineps;  I  have  not  denied 
that  he  was  created  in  the  imii^*iof  CJod  ;  nor  liiat  he 
wasc.'idned  with  the  knowledi^f;  which  wiie  rf'(juiKite 
to  qualify  him  to  act  asj  a  moral  i.s^ent.  Nor  does  tho 
charge  hifore  the  Presbytery  accuse  me  ofVuch  a  de- 
nial. It  accuses  nie  of  denyiii"^  that  Adam  liad  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  knowltd^e  in  respect  to  Iii>  relations. 
And  lor  any  thin?  that,  app-arssuch  a  denial  in  regard 
to  Adam\<i  iniellectual  ei-dowmenls,  is  as  innocent, 
and  orihodox  as  a  simihir  denial  woulil  he  pertaininfj 
to  Jolin  the  Baptist,  or  Lycupiius.  It  remains  yet  to 
be  seen  that  a  belief  that  Adam,  or  any  other  man, 
was  possessed  ol  certain  supposed  inteileciual  en- 
dowments is  essential  to  soundness  in  the  faith,  or 
that  a  denial  of  such  endowments  can  be  construed 
into  heresy. 

(2.)  In  the  ordinary  events  of  moral  government, 
it  is  not  to  he  supposed  that  a  man  should  he  apprised 
ol'all  the  results  of  an  action,  in  order  that  just  pu- 
nishment should  follow.  Lawgivers  declare  certain 
things  as  a  penalty  for  transgression  ;  hut  there  may 
be  certain  o^/icr  things  involved  in  the  r;^sults  which 
are  nol  declared,  and  which  may  be  unknown.  The 
law  appoints  death  as  the  penally  of  murder  or  trea- 
son. This  may  be  understood.  But  the  ciime  of 
murder,  or  treason,  mav  have  a  multitude  of  collate^ 
rat  midremote  eU'ects,  which  the  law  oid  not  specify 
as  a  part  of  the  penalty.  It  may  ruin  the  character, 
it  may  destroy  the  peace  of  the  oft'ender.  It  may  en- 
tail disgra.ce  on  a  family.  It  may  transmit  dishonor 
to  a  distant  posterity,  and  blight  the  happiness  of  a 
wide  circle  of  friends,  or  ofdistant  gener  ttions,  In  all 
this  it  A^ould  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  perpetra- 
tor would  be  apprised  before  the  act  was  committed, 
oi' all  tlieelfects  v/hich  would  follow  from  the  commis- 
sion ot  crime;  or  that  bcin.i?  thus  apprised  was  essen- 
tial to  the  justice  of  the  penally.  All  that  justice  re« 
quires  is,  that  he  shojid  understand  the  law,  and  its 
more  direct  and  immediate  penalty.  Such  I  have  not 
denied  was  the  case  with  Adam. 

(3.)  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  Adani  did  know  op 
could  have  known  all  the  results  of  his  conduct.  None 
but  an  Omaiscent  Eye  could  discernthem  all.  Manhaa 
not  yet  known  them.  The  experience  of  six  tliousand 
years  in  a  sinninij,  and  dyin?;  worki,  has  nat  yet  fully 
developed  them.  And  to  suppose  that  a  newly-crea- 
ted num,  standin^r  at  the  he  <a  of  the  race,  just  ope« 
fling  his  eyes  on  a  new  world  ;  uninlbrmeil  of  the  re- 
ations  of  society  ;  imierlectly  acquiinted  with  the 
nature  of  penalty  ;  s!  )uld  have  been  endowed  with  a 
knowledge  superior  'o  all  that  we  can  now  obtain 
even  by  the  aid  of  re\  elation,  wppears  to  me  to  be,  ia 
the  highest  degree,  absurd  and  improbable, 


31  APPENDIX. 

(4.)  The  orJiiiary  ronrse  in  God's  moral  govern- 
ment is  for  tlie  full  efi'ect  of  transgression  to  be  exhi- 
bited by  the  developements  of  advancing  j'ears. 
Thus  Adam  was  in  less  favorable  circumstances  to 
know  the  eH'ects  than  Paul ;  and  thus  Paul  has  slated 
the  resultp  of  the  crime  of  Adam  to  include  temporal 
nnd  eternal  death — the  tram  of  ills  which  have  in 
fact  cottie  in  upon  the  world  as  the  consquence  of 
transgression. 

(5. J  Tliere  is  no  passage  of  the  Bible  that  has  oc- 
curred to  me,  that  aflirms  that  Adam  was  so  apprised 
of  his  relations  as  to  know  all  the  consequences  which 
would  result  from  sin.  Tiie  account  in  Genesis  is 
simple  and  natural.  He  was  made  a  perfect  man,  in 
the  image  of  God.  He  was  canable  of  understanding 
law;  and  a  simple  law,  adapted  evidently  not  to  a  be- 
ing of  angelic  stature  in  intellect  and  experience,  but 
to  man  in  the  infancy  of  societv,  was  given.  Endowed 
withample  power  to  obey  a  simple  law  ol  God,  he  yet 
chose  to  disobey,  and  the  penally  followed  of  course. 
All  this 's  plain  and  natural,  and  such  as  we  find  in 
accordance  with  the  infancy  of  all  society,  and  with 
all  our  views  of  what  must  have  been  the  origiiiof  the 
race.  It  is  the  simple  account  in  the  Bible;  and  it  is 
Btriking  to  observe  how  much  this  dilT'ers  from  the  ac- 
eount  of  those  writers  who  describe  Adam^  as  endow- 
ed with  the  powers  and  attainments  of  an  accorn- 
pliehed  theologue;  who  suppose  him  to  have  been  far 
Buperior  in  the  knowledge  of  moral  relations  to  the 
Calvinsand  Edwardses,  and  even  Pauls  of  the  theo' 
logical  world  ;  and  who  attribute  to  him  in  addition  a 
knowledge  of  the  habits  of  animals,  and  the  proper- 
ties of  matter,  and  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  wliich 
greatly  surpassed  the  endowments  of  Buflbn,  and 
Davy,  and  Newton,  and  Laplace. 

(6.)  The  account  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  accorda 
with  that  in  the  Bible,  ch.  iv.  sec.  2.  And  the  account 
given  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  vvhich  I  am  charged 
with  having  violated,  accords  precisely  with  the  state- 
ment here  given.  The  doctrine  in  the  confession  is; 
"  After  God  had  made  all  other  creatures,  he  created 
man,  male  and  female,  with  reasonable  and  immortal 
souls,  endowed  with  knowledge,  righteousness,  and 
true  holiness,  after  his  own  image,  having  the  law  of 
God  in  their  hearts,  and  power  to  fulfd  it,  and  yet  un- 
der a  possibility  of  transgressing,  being  left  to  the 
liberty  of  their  own'  will  which  was  subject  unto 
change,"  &c.  With  that  account.  I  exacily.  and  en- 
tirel)  accord.  It  does  not  affirm  that  Adam  knew  his 
moral  relations  so  intimately  as  to  be  certified  that 
his  transgression  would  extend  beyond  temporal 
death.  My  plea  is,  therelore,  that,  the  account  in  the 
'Notes'  is  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures,  wJiU 


APPENDIX.  35 

common  sense,  and  is  prerisely  the  statement  to  be 
found  in  the  Conlessioa  ol' Faith. 

On  this  charj^e,  however,  I  throw  mycelf  at  the 
feet  ofariy  man  wiio  is  competent  to  give  me  informa 
tion.  If  Dr.  Junkin,  or  any  other  person  is  in  poeses- 
eion  of  historical  evidence  that  Adam  i/v/s  endowed 
with  the  knowledge  which  is  claimed  lor  him,  the 
historical  (act  would  be  valuable  to  the  world.  Till 
such  historical  evidence,  however,  is  adduced,  I  must 
be  permitted  to  believe  that  an  expression  o(  an  opinion 
that  Adam  was  not  blessed  with  specified  inlelleclual 
endowments  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  heresy  wliich 
will  render  void  a  Christian's  "  tiile  to  mansions  in 
the  skies." 

A  single  expression,  obviating  perhaps  some  of  the 
difficulties  in  the  mind  of  the  prosecutor  in  this  case, 
has  been  changed  in  the  lourth  edition  of  the  Notes 
on  the  Romans.  Instead  of  sayinj^  that  Adam  was 
"unacquainted  with  law,"  &c.,  it  now  reads,  "tm- 
perfeclly  acquainted  with  law,"  &c. 
Charge  III. 

The  third  charj^e  is  in  these  words,  viz. 

"  That  unregenerate  men  are  abis  to  keep  the  command- 
ments and  convert  themselves  to  God." 

Proof  1,  164.  ''  The  carnal  mind.  This  is  the  same  ex- 
pression as  occurs  in  verse  6,  (to  phronema  tees  sarkos.)  Il 
does  not  mean  the  mind  iiseif,  the  intellect,  or  the  will  ;  it 
does  not  suppose  that  the  mind  or  the  soul  is  physically  de- 
praved, or  opposed  to  God;  but  it  means  that  the  minding  of 
the  things  of  Ihe  Jlesh,  giving  to  them  supreme  attention,  is 
hostility  to  God."  "  f\jr  it. — The  word  (it)  here  refers  to  the 
minding  of  die  things  of  the  flesh.  If  does  not  mean  that  the 
souliZse//"  is  not  subject  to  his  law,  but  that  the  Tnuidino'  of 
those  tlinigs  is  hostile  to  his  law.  The  Apostle  does  not  ex- 
press any  opinion  about  the  metaphysical  ability  of  man,  or 
discuss  that  question  at  all.  The  amount  of  his  affirmation 
is  simply,  that  the  minding  rf  the  Jlesh,  the  supreme  attention 
to  its  delates  and  desires,  is  not  and  cannot  be  subject  to  the 
law  of  God.  They  are  wholly  contradictory  and  irreconcile- 
able,  just  as  much  as  the  love  of  falsehood  is  inconsistent 
with  the  laws  of  truth  ;  as  intemperance  is  inconsistent  wiih 
the  laws  of  temperance;  and  as  adultery  is  a  violation  of  the 
seventh  commandment.  But  whether  the  man  himself  might 
not  obey  the  law  ;  whether  he  has  or  has  not  ability  to  do  it 
— is  a  question  which  the  apostle  does  not  touch,  and  on 
which  this  passage  should  not  be  adduced.  For  whether  the 
law  of  a  p;.rticiilar  sin  is  utterly  irrcconcileable  with  an  oppo- 
site virtue,  and  whether  the  sinner  is  able  to  abandon  that 
sin,  and  pursue  a  diHerent  path,  are  very  different  inquiries. 

Is  not  subject. —ll  is  not  in  subjeciion  to'' the  command  of 
God.  The  minding  of  the  flesh  is  opposed  to  that  law,  and 
thus  shows  that  it  is  hostile  to  God. 

Neither  indeed  can  be. — This  is  absolute  and  certain.  It  is 
impossible  that  it  should  be.  There  is  the  utmost  inability  in 
regard  to  it.    The  things  are  utterly  irreconcileable.    But  ths 


36  APPENDIX. 

affirmation  docs  not  mean  that  the  heart  of  the  sinner  might 
not  be  sutijoct  to  God  :  or  that  his  t^oul  is  so  physically  de- 
praved thai  he  cannot  obey,  or  that  he  might  not  obey  the 
jaw. 

165.  8.  So //ren— It  follows,  it  leads  to  this  conclusion. 
They  that  are  in  the  f.cih.     They  who  ate   unrenewed  sin- 
ners, WHO  ure  followmg   supremely   the  desires  of  the  flesh. 
Chap.  vii.  18.   Those  are  meant  here  who  follow  flc-shl >  appe- 
tites, and  desires,  and  who  are  not  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Cannot  pleane  God.— Th^ii  is,  while  ihey  are  thus  in  the 
flesh,  while  ihey  thus  pursue  the  desires  of  a  corr».pt  nature, 
they  cannot  please  God.  But  this  affirms  nothing  respect- 
ing ilieir  ability  to  turn  from  this  course,  and  to  puifcue  a  dif- 
ferent mode  of  life.  That  is  a  dili'eient  question.  A  child  may 
be  obsiinate,  proud  and  disobedient;  and  while  in  this 
slate,  it  may  be  affirmed  of  him,  that  he  cannot  please  his  pa- 
rent. But  whether  he  might  not  cease  to  be  obstniate,  and 
become  obedient,  is  a  very  different  inquiry,  and  the  two  sub- 
jects should  never  be  confounded. ♦♦*  He  [the  sinner]  is  en- 
gaged in  hostility  againcl  God;  ^nd  if  he  does  not  t.imsclf 
lorsake  it,  it  will  be  endless,  and  involve  his  soul  in  all  the 
evils  of  a  persona!,  and  direct,  and  eternal  warfare  with  the 
Lord  Almighty. ♦♦*  The  Holy  Spirit  is  often  represented  as 
dwelling  in  the  hearts  of  Christians ;  and  the  meaning  is  not 
that  there  is  a  personal  or  physical  indwelling  (•[  the  Holy 
Ghost,  but  that  he  influences,  directs,  and  gudes  Christians, 
producing  metkntss,  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suff.rmg,  gentle- 
ness, goodness,  &c.  The  expression  to  dicell  in  one,  denotes 
intimacy  ot  connexion,  and  means  that  ihosn  things  which 
are  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  are  produced  in  the  heart." 

Prof  2,  p.  108.  '■  We  were  yet  without  siren g.k.  'The word 
here  used  (asihenoon)  is  usually  applied  to  those  who  are  sick 
and  fctble,  deprived  of  strength  by  disease.  Matt.  xxx.  38; 
Luke  X.  9  ;  Acts  iv.  9,  v.  15.  But  it  is  also  used  in  a  moral 
eense  to  denote  inability  or  feebleness,  with  regard  to  any  un- 
dertaking or  cl'ity.  Here  it  means  that  ihey  were  without 
strength  in  regard  to  the  case  which  the  Apostle  was  consider' 
ing  ;  that  is,  we  had  no  power  to  devise  a  schenie  ol  justifi- 
cation, to  make  an  atoneinem,  or  to  put  away  the  wrath  of 
GoJ,  &,c.  Wiiile  all  hope  oi  innii's  being  saved  by  any  plan 
of  his  own,  was  then  taken  away  ;  while  he  was  thus  lying 
exposed  to  divine  justice,  and  dependent  on  the  mere  mercy 
of  God  ;  God  provided  a  plan  which  met  the  case,  and  se- 
cured his  salvation.  The  remark  of  the  apostle  here  has  re- 
ference only  to  the  condition  of  the  case  before  the  atonement 
was  made.  It  dees  not  p  rtain  to  the  question,  whether  man 
has  sironath  to  re|ient  and  believe,  now  that  iha  atonemen)  is 
made,  which  is  a  very  different  iiKjuiry." 

The  contrariety  of  this  to  the  tficinuards,  will  appeal  by  re- 
ference to  Con.cliap.  vi.  -1,  ix,  3,  4,  x.  1,  2,  xvi. 

In  rcsrartl  to  the  passages  from  the  '  Notes,'  quoted 
in  proofof  tlic  dmrgc,  1  remark  that  it  did  not  seem 
possihie  that  thuy  should  bo  iiiisunrlerstuod.  Vv'hat- 
ever  may  he  niy  seniiiiirntf  on  this  point,  which  at 
aliproper  limes  and  places,  I  never  he-;itiite  to  avow, 
vet  the  passages  in  question  teat  li  notliing  on  that 


APPENDIX.  37 

subject.  They  simply  affirm  that  the  expressions  ol* 
Paul  oil  whicli  I  am  lh{ir*iCOtnt\\cnl'n\g,  teach  nothirifc 
one  way  or  tlie  other  on  the  subjai  of  munh'  abitity, 
or  inabLlity,  aiul  this  is  my  dcleiice  against  the 
charge.  Tlie  charge  has  two  couiitf.  1.  That  1  teach 
ihat  ■■  uuregencrate  men  are  able  to  keep  the  com- 
mandments, and  2.  Tiiat  the}  arc  able  lo  "  cuavert 
themselves  to  God."  Now  in  regard  to  the&e,  it  \'i 
remarkable  tliat  on  l\\efirst,\.  expressly  declar-^  in  the 
Notes  that  the  pasi^agesi  in  Paul  leach  nothing  on  the 
subject  one  way  or  the  oiher;  and  in  regard  to  the 
second  count,  it  is  as  remarkublf,  that  lliere  is  not 
the  remottsL  allusion  to  the  suLJtct  of  meal's  conveit- 
inp;  ththiselves  to  God.  The  subject  is  not  even 
nametl,  or  relerred  to  in  the  remotest  degree  to  my 
recollection  throughout  iJie  eniire  volume.  The  ques- 
tion which  the  Presoytery  is  to  decide  is,  whether 
these  ciiarges  are  suolinned  by  the  Notes  on  the  Ro- 
mans. And  my  plea  here  is,  that  I  have  expressed 
no  opinion  on  the  subject  charged  on  me,  and  of 
course  that  the  charge  must  be  dismissed,  it  is  not 
a  little  remarkable  that  grave  and  lormal  accusations 
should  be  brought  against  a  minister  ol  the  gospel  on 
a  subject  on  wliich  he  e.cpressly  declines  giving  any 
opinion  in  the  book  under  consideration.  It  certainly 
seems  to  indicate  that  there  were  certain  doctrined 
vvhicti  it  was  deemed  desirable  to  bring  into  the  dis- 
cussion;  that  on  certain  points  there  vvi'.s  a  wish, 
arising  from  some  cause,  that  the  character  oi';i  min- 
ister should  be  held  up  to  odium  for  holding  ct  tain 
opinions;  and  the  case  now  before  us,  ii  one  striking 
evidence  of  what  1  iiave  before  relerred  to,  and  of 
what  luis  given  me  so  much  perplexity,  the  loose,  and 
hasty,  and  undigested  manner  in  which  these  charg- 
es have  been  brought  aijainst  my  ministerial  charac- 
ter. Of  the  conduct  ot'  Di.  Juukin  in  this,  1  have 
cause  lo  coaiplain,  and  do  com])laiu  that  he  has  false- 
ly accused  me  of  teaching  that  '"  men  are  able  lo  con- 
vert themselves  lo  God."  That  expression,  neither 
in  written  nor  oral  discourse,  havf;  1  over  used  ;  and 
it  was  incumbent  on  the  pro5ecut')r  to  have  alleged 
the  precise  expression  in  proof.  Injury  has  htcn  tione 
by  the  charge,  so  far  as  a  gratuitous  and  vvnjily  un- 
Ibunded  charge  could  do  me  injury.  i\len  1  knov/ 
have  been  held  in  popular  rumor  to  have  odvanced 
Kuch  a  sentiment;  and  no  small  amount  of  odium  has 
been  excited  aarainst  them.  For  myself,  I  have  never 
heard  the  declaraiion  made;  and  I  distinctly  declare, 
that  1  have  never  taiu'ht  it  myself  And  1  ask  whe- 
ther it  is  to  he  permitted  in  the  Presbyteri  '.n  church 
ihat  one  iniaister  shall  be  sullered  bravely  lo  charge 
another  with  that  of  which  there  is  not,  even  in  t/ie 
alleged  proof,  the  semblance  of  evidence?  Pursuinsr 
4 


98  APPENDIX. 

this  couree,  how  easy  it  would  be  to  ruin  the  charac- 
ter of  any  man  !  Allowin;sr  this,  what  man  is  sale  iVotn 
wholly  unlouniied  and  graiiiilous  accusations  7 

If  it  were  called  lor,  1  slio^iki  have  no  reluctance  to 
engage  in  a  discussion  on  the  subject  ol  human  abili- 
ty. But  the  case  does  not  demand  or  admit  it.  1  may 
just  observe,  however,  that  the  Conle?sion  of  Faith 
ofour  church,  like  the  Bible,  knows  ot  no  inability  in 
the  sinner  that  does  not  exist  in  the  will,  and  which  is 
not  therefore  moral,  and  not  |)hysical.  Its  lane^uage 
is, (Con.  Faith,  ch.  ix.  sec.  3,  4,)  "Man,  by  his  i'all  in- 
to a  state  ol  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  ail  ability  of  will  to 
any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation;  so  as  a 
natural  man  being  altogether  avekse  from  that  which 
is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able  by  his  own 
strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  prepare  himself 
thereto." 

In  this  statement  on  the  subject  of  the  state  of  man  in 
regard  to  conversion,!  observe  (l.)That  it  is  the  forma 
Btatement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  confession  on  the  sub- 
ject. Though,  therefore,  the  confession  elsewhere 
epeaks  ol  tlie  sinner's  inability,  yet  it  is  to  this  chap- 
ter, which  professedly  treats  on  the  subject,  that  we 
are  to  look  for  the  meaning  of  the  term.  2.  There  is  no 
statement,  here  nor  elsewiierc,  of  any  physical  or  na- 
tural inability  of  the  sinner  to  obey  the  commands  of 
God.  Had  such  been  the  intention  of  the  framers  ol* 
the  coniession,  such  a  statement  would  have  been 
^made.  3.  All  the  inability  in  the  case  is  traced  to  the 
(will.  "  Man  hath  lost  all  ability"— ol  what  7  Of  the 
^  understanding?  of  his  physical  powers  7  No,  but  all 
(ability  of  will  ;  and  the  eti'fct  of  this  is  that  he  is 
/  AVERSE,  i.  e.  opposed  lo  iioliness,  and  this  is  the  reason 
V  why  he  is  not  converted  lo  God.  That  it  was  the  in- 
tention of  the  framers  of  the  confession,  to  say  that 
the  inability  spoken  of  existed  in  the  will,  or  disposi- 
;  tion,  or  heart,  alone — that  is,  that  it  was  a  moral  and 
not  a  natural  inability,  is  manifest.  Nothing  could  be 
more  clearly  expressed  than  this;  and  with  this  state- 
ment I  eiuireiy  accord,  and  this  I  have  always  held. 
4.  This  accords  with  the  Bible,  and  with  common 
sense.  There  are  two  kinds  of  inability — one  arising 
from  the  want  of  physical  povver,  the  other  from  a 
want  of  inclination  or  will.  The  inability  of  a  man  lo 
remove  a  inmniain  is  one  thing,  and  an  inability  to 
do  right  arising  from  the  strong  love  of  sin  is  another. 
The  one  excuses,  the  other  does  not.  The  latter  is 
that  which  is  to  be  charged  on  men;  for  [a]  it  is  that 
only  which  is  referred  to  in  the  Bible.  The  Scriptures 
when  they  account  for  the  reason  why  men  do  not  be- 
come Christians,  trace  it  to  sih, and  to  di.-^i'iclination, 
John  V,  40,  44.  Particular  sins  are  specified,  the  love 
of  the  world,  pride,  passion,  lust,  &.c.    [b]  They  ad- 


APPENDIX.  39 

dress  men  as  subject  to  no  other  inability.  They  com- 
mand men  to  choose  &c.,  to  make  themi?clves  new 
heartP,  all  o(  which  suppose  that  man  has  power  to 
obey.  Deuf.  xxx;19:  Josh,  xxiv  ;  15:  Jobxxxiv;  4: 
Luke  x;  42:  Ezek.  xxxiii ;  1 1  :  xviii ;  31,  32.  [<]  Ifnot, 
man  is  excusable  tor  noloheyin,5i.  This  isamatrer  of 
common  sense.  The  dipiinclion  is  made  by  all  men, 
by  all  parents,  teachers,  lawgivers,  &c.  [d]  The  con- 
trary doctrine  tends  to  produce  the  neglect  of  religion, 
and  security  in  impenitence  and  sin.  IIDr.  J.  chargres 
me  with  error  in  this,  he  holds  the  contrary,  that  if, 
'that  unrej^enerate  men  are  not  able  lo  keep  tlie  com- 
mandments ;  that  there  is  no  ability  of  any  kind  to  yield 
obedience;  that  in  no  conceivablie  sense  has  man  any 
power  to  repent,  to  believe,  and  to  love  God,  or  to  love 
his  fellow  men ;  that  there  is  an  inability  on  these  sub- 
jects, which  does  not  lie  in  the  disposition,  the  heart, 
or  the  will,  but  which  lies  in  somethins:  that  is  inde- 
jiendent  of  the  will,  and  which  is  therefore  of  a  phy- 
sical nature;  that  it  is  the  same  kind  ol  inability  which 
a  man  should  labor  under  if  he  were  commanded  to 
drain  the  ocean  or  to  lilt  a  mountain,  or  to  create  a 
world,  or  to  raise  the  dead  ;  and  that  therefore  a  com- 
mand to  do  one  would  be  as  reasonable  as  to  do  the 
other.'  And  this  is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  God  has 
gciven  men  commands  which  in  no  sense  they  are  able 
to  obey.  Now  to  say  this,  is  the  same  as  to  charge 
God  with  tyranny.  What  was  it  that  made  the  go- 
vernment ol' Pharaoh  tyrannical  but  laying  tasks  on 
the  Israelites  which  they  had  no  power  in  any  sense  to 
obey,  comTianding  them  to  make  bricks  without 
straw?  And  what  will  be  the  etiect  of  preaching  this 
doctrine?  Is  it  not  evident,  that  it  will  be  to  convince, 
men  that  the  irovernment  of  God  is  one  of  tyranny? 
Will  it  not  be  to  confirm  them  in  sin?  Why  should 
man  make  an  effort  when  he  has  no  power  of  any  kind 
to  move  ?  Is  it  not  so  obviously  in  the  face  of  the 
common  sense  of  men — so  much  at  variance  with  the 
ereat  original  mipressions  of  truth,  made  on  their 
minds,  that  they  will  reject  it,  and  reject  the  system 
which  professes  to  hold  it,  with  abhorrence?  Would 
Dr.  Junkin  dare  to  preach  it  to  my  people,  or  to  any 
other  people?  or  if  he  did,  would  he  expect  that  men 
would  be  roused  by  it  to  repent,  and  turn  to  God?  Is 
it  not  known  that  the  tendency  of  it  every  where  is  to 
annihilate  a  sense  of  responsibility,  and  free  agency, 
and  to  make  revivals  of  religion  cease?  [e]  The  Bi- 
ble no  wfiere  requires  more  of  men  than  they  can  per- 
form. Thus  our  Savior  says  that  the  sum  of  the  Jaw 
and  the  prophets  consists  in  this,  "  Thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all 
thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy 
mind ;  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.''    Luke  x  ;  27.    In 


iO  AVPENDIX. 

this  passfisrc  the  requirement  is  exprppply  limited  (o 
the  cnpacity  of  ihf^  piibject.  All  t'  e  heart,  the  pon', 
the  etrenjjth,  i;^  required;  and  this  is  the  whol^ofthe 
requirement.  It  doe?  not  l<iy  a  clum  on  any  power 
which  man  docs  not  posseps ;  nor  b^vond  any  power 
whicli  he  poss^pses.  It  is  diTmitoIy  limited  to  the  ex- 
rent  of  the  capacity,  in  accordance  witli  ah  the  rn'cs 
of  common  pcnsc.  and  the  oncratinn  oCall  laws.  But 
suppose  the  principle  contended  for  by  Dr.  Junkinvvxre 
to  be  applied  to  this  law  ofGod.  Suppose  the  eract- 
mcnt  hrul  been  framed  with  reference  to  the  doctrine 
that  God  may  demand  of  mnn  that  which  in  vn  penso 
lie  is  able  to  render.  What  a  dilTerent  form  would  at 
once  have  been  eiven  to  tiie  commandment.  To  meet 
that  Rupnosition,it  must  have  read,  "  Thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  more  than  ai,i,  thy  poid,  and 
thy  mind,  and  thv  stukngth" — or  "Thou  ehalt  love 
him  not  only  to  the  measure  of  thy  capacity  and  ca- 
pability, but  with  the  measure  of  (he  powers  (^f  some 
other  bein^,  of  anangeljOr  anarchnn2el,"«S6C.  Would 
not  such  a  statute  have  been  a  burlesque  on  nil  legis- 
lation? And  yet  this  is  the  lesritimate  statement  of 
the  doctrine, unless  it  be  admitted  that  the  divine  law, 
in  accordance  with  common  sense,  and  with  all  other 
law,  is  adapted  lo  the  capacity  of  the  subject,  f/f 
The  same  thin?  occurs  every  where.  The  principle 
of  adapting  requirements  to  cnpncitv,  law  to  the  pow- 
ers of  moral  agency,  obtiiins  in  all  families,  and  in  al! 
governments;  nor  could  ihey  possibly  exist  on  any 
other  principle.  It  is  a  principie  which  commends  •(- 
self  to  all  men  ;  and  the  distinction  is  one  which  all 
men  make.  This  lias  been  abincfanily  proved  by  Ed- 
wards, [on  the  Will,  part  1,  ^  l]  It  enters  into  all 
our  notion  of  moral  asencv  and  of  government.  Every 
parent  punishes  a  child  for  disobeying  when  he  has 
power  to  obey  ;  he  would  excuse  him,  and  justify  him, 
if  he  had  no  power.  A  man  without  limbs  cannot  be 
required  to  walk  ;  without  eyes  cannot  be  required  to 
sec;  without  hands  cannot  be  required  to  labor.  If, 
in  a  moment  of  desperate  wickedness,  a  servant  ha« 
cut  ofla  iian(l,or  put  out  an  pyc,  he  cannot  be  required 
1o  labor  with  the  hand  thnf  is  remnved,or  to  see  with 
the  orsran  i.hat  is  extinsruished  He  is  responsible  for 
the  original  act  by  wh  ch  lie  d<  urived  himself  of  abili- 
ty, and  the  moral  turpitude  of : hat  act  is  to  be  mea- 
sured by  the  intention,  and  by  bis  obligation  vol  to  do 
it.  But  to  hold  hitn  answerable  nnv)  for  the  use  of  a 
hand  which  is  removed,  or  to  require  him  to  see  with 
an  eve  vvhich  is  blind,  would  be  a  requirement  that 
■would  be  the  definition  of  tyranny.  \f^]  This  distine- 
tion  has  been  made  by  the  church  in  all  aeres.  It  i* 
not  only  reco£rnized  in  our  conl'espioii  of  faith,  and  in 
the  Biole,  and  the  coranion  sense  of  men,  bat  has  been 


APPfcNDlX.  41 

the  common  doctrine  of  all  the  wibc  and  good  in  the 
church  at  all  times.* 

I  may  here,  however,  add  my  full  belief,  which  in 
no  instance  I  have  ever  denied  or  varied  from,  ihat 
such  is  the  depravity  of  man  by  nature;  t-iicli  his  love 
of  sin,  and  opposition  to  the  law  and  irovernment  of 
God ;  such  hi.s  moral  inability,  i.  e.  his  strong,  and 
decided,  and  constant  opposition  to  God  ll>y  nature, 
that  he  will  always  remain  a  sinner  unless  he  is  aided 
from  on  hi^h.  No  man  ever  was,  or  ever  will  be,  it 
isjmy  full  conviction,  awakened,  convinced.or  convert- 
ed, but  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Gbost,  an  agency 
which  is  necJAirto  arrest  his  attention  ;  to  alarm  hia 
fears;  to  disjjose  him  to  inquiry  and  lo  prayer;  and 
to  convert  his  heart  to  God.  No  man  becomes  a 
Christian,  or  goes  to  heaven,  without  being  disposed 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  without  being  broui^ht  to  eter- 
nal life  from  the  commencement  to  tiie  close  of  the 
work, by  the  sovereign  mercy  of  God. and  by  the  agency 
of  his  spirit.  No  miin  overdid  or  will  repent,  except  an 
influenced  by  the  Spirit ;  so  that  in  all  ihis  work  it  is 
true  as  a  fact — as  a  historical  verity,  in  which  sense 
1  understand  the  pass>ige,  that  "no  n;an  can  come  to 
the  Savior,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  him 
draw  iiim."    Jolm  vi;  44. 

As,  however,  the  charges  alleged  against  me  are 
for  doctrines  taught  in  the  "Notes  on  the  Romans," 
I  demand  that  the  sentence  in  this  case  be  solely  on 
the  senlimenls  in  that  book;  and  as  in  that  book  1  have 
tau.^^lit  nothing  on  the  subject,  either  one  way  or  the 
other,  the  charge  is  not  sustained  ;  and  the  Presbytery 
cannot  find  me  guilty. 

The  only  semblance  of  an  argument  here  must  be, 
that  I  have  removed  certain  texts  which  have  been 
usually  supposed  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  sinner's 
inabiliiy,  iroin  the  category  of  proof-texts  on  that  sub- 
ject. But  assuredly,  if  the  interpretation  of  those 
texts  is  correct,  that  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  of- 
fence. It  cannot  be  assumed  that  a  certain  interpre- 
tation of  a  text  is  orthodoxy,  and  that  to  doubt  it  is 
heresy  ;  or  that  a  man  by  subscribing  the  Conlession 
ol  Faith  is  precluded  from  an  examination  of  the  Bi- 
ble. If  the  inlerpretulion  of  i  hose  texts  is  erroneous, 
the  error  can  be  stated  and  corrected;  but  because  I 
have  ventured  to  give  a  diti'erent  interpretation  of 
those  texts  Irom  that  which  Dr.  Junkin  supposes  to  be 
the  coriect  one,  or  which  has  been  commonly  held  to 
be  correct,  I  am  not,  therelbre,  to  be  changed  with  de- 
nying the  doctrine  of  the  Confession.  To  make  this 
perlectly  plain,  it  is  only  necessary  to  apply  it  to  other 
cases.    Ttie  text  in  1  John  v  ;  7:  has  been  applied  in 


*  See  the  trial  of  Lyman  Beecher,  D.  D.,  where  this  is  abun- 
daatly  proved. 

4* 


4?  APPENDIX.. 

all  a^es  of  the  church,  by  the  maj'^iiiy  of  the  ortho- 
dox, 10  prove  the  doclriiie  of  ihc  Triiiiiy.  Boi  if  ii 
man  should  express  a  d  -ubl  in  regard  to  ihe  gtriuiue- 
nessortlial  texi,  is  Jie  therelbre  to  be  churijed  wiih 
t'iie  deiiiiil  of  this  doc'rine?  Tlie  pass^aj^es  in  Jer. 
xvii ;  9.  and  in  Ercl.  vii ;  29,  h;i  vo  been  usually  applied 
to  prove  the  doctrine  of  total  dej.  -nvity.  But  if  a  nmn 
should  venture  to  give  a  diH'ereni  interpretation  to 
these  texts,  and  to  show  that  they  are  not  pertinent 
us  prool",  is  he  therelore  to  be  charged  with  denying 
the  doctrine  of  depravity  ?  Yet  ihis  ie  the  principle 
on  which  this  charge  is  brought;  and  on  this  principle, 
the  orthodoxy  of  no  men  in  fhe  land  who  examines 
the  Bi')le  for  himself,  can  remain  long  unsuspected; 
•and  on  this  prinnple  I  could  convict  ol  heresy  the  most 
illustrious  man  for  learning  and  piety  that  ever  adorn- 
ed the  church  or  the  world. 

Charge  IV. 
The  fourfh  charge  is  in  the  following  words: 
"  That  faith  i.a  an  act  of  the  mind,  and  not  a  principle;  and 
»a  itself  imputed  ky  rigfitcousness." 

Proof  1,  p.  94.  "  Abraham  believed  God."  In  Jhe  Hebrevr, 
"Abrahatii  believed  Jehurah."  Tht  sen.-ij  is  siibstaniially  the 
same,  as  the  arijumcni  turns  on  the  ast  of  believing.  Thefaitli 
which  Abraha"''!  exercised  was,  that  his  poaterity  should  be 
like  the  stars  of  heaven  in  number.  This  promise  was  made 
to  him  wlun  he  had  no  child,  and  of  course  when  he  bad  no 
prospect  of  such  a  posierity.  See  the  strength  and  nature  of 
this  faith  furih-r  illustrated  in  verses  16—21.  The  reason 
why  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness  was,  that  it  was 
such  a  strong,  direct  and  unwavering  act  of  confidence  in  the 
promise  uf  God.  And  it. — The  woid  "  it"  here  evidently  re- 
fers to  the  act  of  believing,  h  does  noi  nfer  to  the  righicou.'j- 
ness  of  another— of  God  or  of  the  Messiah  ;  but  the  discus- 
sion is  solely  ofthes/ro?i5'ac;  of  Abraham's  faith,  which  in  .tome 
sense  was  counted  to  him  for  risihteousnes:,  In  what  sense 
this  was,  is  explained  dir(H:ily  after.  All  that  is  material  to 
remark  here  is,  that  the  act  of  Abraham,  the  strong  confidence 
of  his  mind  in  the  promises  ol  God,  his  unwavering  assurance 
that  what  God  had  rromikei  he  would  perform,  was  received 
for  righteousjif  .  The  same  thuig  is  ex|"essed  more  fully  in 
ver.  18 -22.  When,  then  fore,  it  is  said  the  rij^liieousnet-s  of 
Christ  is  accounted  or  imputed  to  us;  when  it  is  said  that  his 
meriis  are  transferred  and  reckoned  as  ours;  wiiaiever  may 
be  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  it  cannot  be  defended  by  tliU-  pt-s- 
sage  of  Scripture.  Faiih  is  always  an  act  of  the  mind.  Ilia 
not  a  created  essence  which  is  placed  within  the  mind.  It  i.** 
not  a  substance  created  independently  of  the  (•oul,  and  placed 
within  it  by  Almighty  power.  It  is  uoi  a  principle,  lor  iha 
expr{:fs\on,  a  prih'.ii>le  of  fuilh,  h  as  unmeaning  as  a  pri;t- 
ciple  of  joy,  or  a  princip  e  of  soriow,  or  a  principle  of  reniurse. 
God  promises,  and  the  man  believes,  and  this  is  the  whole  of 
it.  Beyond  the  mental  operation,  there  is  nothing  in  the  case, 
and  tlie  word  is  siiictly  liniiied  to  suih  an  act  of  the  mind 
throughout  the  Bible,  'i'here  is  not  a  place  that  can  be  ad- 
duced where  the  word  nicans  any  thing  else  than  an  act  of 


APPENDIX.  43 

flie  niinr?,  cxt-rciscd  in  relation  lo  somr'  oFj  -ct,  or  Bomc  pro- 
mine,  or  ihn  aiciiing,  or  dffclaration  ol  some  otlicr  hciiig." 
I>.  95.  "  IleiJiark  (I)  Tliat  it  is  evidently  nut  intruded  that  tho 
:ict  of  l)i'l;ijving,  on  the  part  of  Ahraham,  was  the  miritorivua 
fjrouiid  (if  ac-ccptancc ;  lor  then  it  would  have  been  a  work, 
•'"aith  was  as  much  his  own  act,  as  any  act  of  obeilicnce  to 
the  law.  (2)  rhe  design  of  tiie  Apostle  was  to  sh'jw  that  by  the 
laxo,  or  by  ipoiks.  man  could  not  be  j'istified.  Chap.  iii.  28, 
iv.  2.  (3)  Pallli  was  not  thai  which  the  law  n. qjircd.  Ii  de- 
manded comiilete  and  perfect  obLdieiice  ;  and  if  am  n  va3 
justified  by  faith,  it  was  in  some  other  icat/,  titan  by  the  law. 
(4)  As  the  law  did  not  demand  this,  [laitii  "confidence  in 
*.>od"  s;:e  page  30;]  and  as  fuiili  was  somcihiiii?  difftrent 
from  the  demand  of  the  law,  S'>if  a  man  were  justifi -d  by  tliaf, 
it  was  on  a  principle  altoijethcr  diflL'reni  froii  justification  by 
works.  It  was  not  by  personal  merit.  It  was  not  by  com- 
plying with  the  law.     It  was  in  a  mode  eniireiy  diflercnt." 

How  contrary  this  to  the  Confession  of  Faiil*  is  evident. 
See  Ciiap.  xiv.  11.  Lar.  Cat.  72,  73. 

This  cliapiie  consist?  of  three  counf.«,  or  specifica- 
tions, which  it  is  ni'.cefsary  to  dispose  ot'iii  their  onirr. 

The  rirst  is,  that  "  i'lith  is  an  net  of  the  mind." 
The  proof  is  in  p.  94.  in  -eg.ird  to  this  portion  of  the 
charg-e,  I  admit  that  1  tneant  to  teacii,  iis  charited, 
that  '■  faith  IS  always  an  act  ol'the  mind.''  And  the 
maatiin^  is  so  obvious,  tiuit  it  t^c.irce  requires  elucida- 
tion. I  desij:n^d  to  teacli  that  it  was  not  a  created 
essence  inde|)endent  of  the  soul  ;  and  that  there  was 
nolhiiii^  i/i  faith  which  could  not  be  appropriately  de- 
scribed l>y  tlie  mind  rtccichi!^,  and  re.-<lin<^oi\  Cinist; 
t'.zvrc/.9/'/«;?"  confidence  in  him  ;  bfUfving  his  promises, 
fearinsr  his  threaieninj^s,  ati-i  depfiuting  on  him  for 
salvaiioii,  all  which  are  aclmts^i  of  the  minds,  or  are 
the  mint  (iciin°:.  And  1  do  noi  wish  to  he  understood 
now  as  hol(linj?any  tliiiii?'  on  this  point  diti'erent  from 
that  wiiicU  is  iiere  i-harijtd  Oii  me. 

1  iioLl  tiiis  opini  )n  \'or  li^e  follovvin::  reasons  :  (1.)  It 
seems  to  me  to  be  a  matier  ni'coinmon  sense,  and  one 
which  commends  itself  to  all  who  e.xamine  iheir  own 
minds.  'Vo  beliKOt  is  evidently  an  act  of  tho  mind, 
anil  yet  this  bdiecins  is  all  that  is  understood  by 
failh.  To  believe  a  historical  narrative  ;  to  bi-lieve 
a  mathematical  proposiuon,  is  evi  leniiy  an  (tcliiii^  of 
the  mind  in  relation  to  sue  i  it  n  irradve.  or  pron  isi- 
tion;  and  this  is  expressed  by  the  word  failh.  Toie- 
liere  is  as  much  aii  act  of  the  mind  as  to  llin.k,  lo  re- 
niembt^r,  to  hope,  to  love,  to  f -ar.  So  obvious  is  ^lu.'', 
that  I  should  be  unwilling'  to  niiike  ihepe  n. marks,  ot' 
my  beli'vin.(  Ihis  in  my  own  mind  —  in  which  i  ani 
conscious  of  an  acting,  or  opera' ion  fd  niind,  were  it 
not  charired  on  me  as  gross  and  di^nj -rnus  heresy. 
(2.)  The  account  which  is  mve-  in  the  Bibieaccorda 
With  tiiis.  Cliristiaiis  are  described  as  htlicii  i^- — im- 
ply injj  an  aciin;;  or  0|)eraiiun  <d  the  loi  ni  in  r^lt  rei  ce 
lo  certain  propositions.    Tl.cy  are  tailed  btlicieis, 


41  ArrENDix. 

or  those  who  believe,  that  is  '.hose  who  put  forth 
such  iicts  of  mind.  Mitihew  xxi.  22;  John  xx. 
27;  Ar.is  xvi.  21,  xxiv.  24,  viii.  17;  Jolui  ii.  23,  iv. 
39,  xi.  "Jo,  xii.  42,  and  passim.  And  in  the  detailed 
BtatenuMit  which  the  Apoftle  Paul  has  given  (Heb.xi.) 
ol'  tile  nature  ol"  faith,  he  has;  (jescribed  a  succession 
of  ac/6"  of  mind  iiireiaiion  to  different  individuals  who 
put  conlidence  in  God  ;  and  this  is  what  in  his  view 
constitiiteil  faitli.  Conip.  ver.  1.  (3.)  Unless  it  were 
such  an  actinjj  of  the  mind  it  could  not  be  coiinTiand- 
ed  as  a  duty  to  believe.  If  faith  were  of  ihe  nature  of 
a  ere  itcd  essence;  an  independent  subsiance  lying  in 
the  soul  ;  a  m.itler  which  could  be  aliected  by  no  act- 
in;^  ol  the  mind,  it  could  never  be  the  subject  o  '  com- 
mand ;  nor  could  its  existence  or  absence  be  the  oc- 
casion ot  praise  or  blame.  This  is  so  apparent  as  to 
need  no  arirunieiit. 

My  vindication  from  this  charge,  T  put  oa  the  fol- 
lowing grounds:  [1.]  It  is  in  accortlance  with  the 
Bible  and  vvilh  common  sen-^se.  [2  J  It  is  not  a  viola- 
tion of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  hut  accirds  with  it. 
*' By  this  faith,  a  christi.in  HELiEVExn  to  be  true, 
whatsoever  is  revealed  in  the  word,  lor  the  authority 
of  Gud  speaking  therein  ;  and  actetii  dilkrcnty  upon 
that  which  each  [/articular  passa^re  thereol'  conlain- 
cth;  yifldins^  obnrliaice  to  the  commands,  trvniblinfT 
at  the  threateniiiiis,  and  embruciiif^  the  promises  of 
God  (or  this  lite  and  that  v/hich  is  to  come.  But  th« 
j)rincipal  acts  of  saving  faith  are  acctptinp^,  receiv- 
ing, and  rtsiing  ujjon  Christ  alone  for  justilicaiion, 
eaiiclilicalion,  ;tnd  eternal  life,  by  virtue  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace."  Con.  cli.  xiv.  §  2.  In  this  i)lace,  all 
the  operations  of  faith  are  described  aii  actings  of  the 
mind;  or  ns  the  mind  acting  in  rel;?tion  to  certain 
objects  or  truths.  It  is  represented  as  "yielding  obe- 
dience," 'trembling,"  "embracing,"  "accepting." 
"receiving,"  and  "resting  on;"  alj  of  which  imply 
an  acting  of  the  mind.  It  would  be  impossible  lor  the 
Confession  to  be  more  explicit.  Nothing  else  is  epo- 
l<en  of  bnt  such  an  acting  oi'miad.  Atul  the  Confes- 
bion  undoubtedly  was  dcsi^fied  to  teach,  in  accord- 
ance witli  the  Bible  and  with  common  sen>e,  thai  to 
believe  implies  an  operation  of  mind ;  or  the  mind  act- 
ing in  relntion  to  certain  truths.  The  views  which  I 
iiTve  expressed  in  the   specification  are,   therefore, 

freciseiy  in  accordance  with  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
3.]  It  would  be  easy  to  sho>v  that  this  accords  with 
tlie  sentiments  of  all  those  who  h^ive  usually  keen  re- 
g  rd-id  as  orthodox.  One  testimony,  bowevcr,  must 
cuttice.  Itislromihe  Biblic.ii  K<  pertory  of  Prince- 
ton, where  the  sentiment  which  I  have  advanced,  is 
advanceil  in  explicit  terms.  In  speaking  ol  the  propo- 
sition that  "  taith  is  an  act  of  the  mind,  and  nothing 
but  an  act  of  the  mind,"  the  conductors  of  ihat^work 


APPENDIX.  45 

I  Kny  :  "  We  should  be  eorry  to  think  that  the  Apsem- 
\  My  had  denounced  this  as  a  '  peKtilerous  error,'  for 
we  conf  s.s  our.selves  iruiliy  of  thi.s  opinion.  We  can- 
not conceive  what  laiih  is  hut  llie  act  ol'liclicvir'^;  it 
i3  one  of  the  njiniilV'Staiions  ol  lh.\i  j)n')icip/f  oi  holi- 
T'.eas  wiiicli  vvehelieve  lo  he  the  rendi  oi'  the  Spirit's 
opera!  i  >n  on  1  he  heart."     Vol.  vii.  480. 

The  second  count  in  the  charge  is^  tliat  "  faifh  is  not 
ft  principle."  hi  the  jiapeage  referred  to  in  the  noieH 
as  prool,  tiii.-?  ?.s"  expressly  stated  as  niy  beiii  f  tliavliiiili 
i.s  not.  (I  prinriulc.  By  this,  I  meant  to  adirni  thai  it 
was  not  any  ihinj!^  irulrpcitdi^nt  of  the  aciinjr  of  tlie 
mind;  uny  c.rea  ed  or  conceivable  e.^^si-nce  ofiiie  soul 
tiiat  was  lyin^  back  oftheact  ol'believinjr.  Dy  iiring- 
ing  this  chirj^e,  Dr.  Junkin  cvidenily  Gupiio.-es  that 
faith  is  nut  an  act  of  the  mind  bui  is  a  principle  ;  ihat 
it  does  not  consist  in  the  mind's  actino:,  or  in  any  men- 
tal operation,  but  in  somethinj^  di.siinct  from  all  ^uch 
operations,  and  independent  of  them.  Inoiher  \vor(i."=, 
that  the  (nind  does  nol  act  in  believing,  but  ihai  there 
is  somiMhing/M  llie  mind  indci)etident  nf  any  siiili  act- 
in.?  that  is  10  he  called  faith.  As  he  hn.^not  told  us  in 
his  charixes  wiiat  he  means  by  this,  it  is  impossible  for 
nie  to  know  how  to  rtieet  the  accusation.  l!  il  is  meant 
t-hat  ftiih  is  such  an  independent,  created  essence  that 
has  no  connection  wirb  an  act  ol'ihe  mind,  it  was  my 
purpose  to  deny  it.  But  if  it  he  mcani.  ihat_  the  Chris- 
tian, the  man  who  believe.=^ — is  a  man  of  principle  ; 
that  he  has  certain  creat  principles  of  coi  duct,  by 
which  he  is  rer^ulated,  it  was  not  o'y  purpose  tn  deny 
it,  but  to  affirm  it.  [  understand  by  "'  a  jirinciphj"  of 
action,  nol  a  created  and  irresponsible  essence  of  the  . 
soul,  a  part  of  the  physical  structure  ol  (he  min(l,  but 
an  adopted  rule  ol  life  ;  a  purpose  or  deiermiiaiion  of 
the  mind  ro  act  in  a  certain  way  ;  a  fixed  risnjuiion  to 
do  lislit  whatever  may  be  the  result  ;  the  creat  rules 
and  laws  wiiich  a  man  adoius,  and  by  which  he  in- 
tends to  reiru'ate  his  conduct.  In  this  sense,  it  doea 
not  diHer  from  a  firm  and  established  purpose  of  ihe 
mind  itself;  a  purpose  which  becomes  strengthened 
by  ev('ry  snccessive  decision  of  the  nn'nd  ;  which  ri- 
paps  iato  iuihit  by  frequent  repetition  ;  atid  which  may 
thus  be  called  the  habitual  hi-nt  or  dispn.'^ilidv  of  the 
Koul.  As  intended  to  describe  the  hadivs:  pmposp^ 
the  estal)ii>hed  preference  and  tinbit  of  the  man's 
mind,  it  was  not  my  intention  to  deny  that  there  ore 
such  principles  of  action,  and  that  the  Christinn  is 
thus  a  man  of  principle.  But  in  this  case,  we  speak 
of  the  man  as  a  m<in  f>f  prwciple  ;  we  do  not  inrend 
to  describe  \\w.  art  of  the  mind  as  a  principle.  We. 
say  tiiat  a  man  who  will  act  ri^ht  in  the  face  of  oppo- 
sition and  p"rsecution.  is  a  man  of  principle  ;  but  we 
do  not  describe  his  acting  rifjht,  the  operation  of  his 
mind,  as  a  principle.    We  do  noi  speak  of  a  prmciple 


46  APPENDIX. 

of  joy,  a  prinriple  o(  sorrow,  &c.,  but  we  speak  of  the 
ffrccit  principles  or  leading  deterjiiinatiotit;  by  which 
a  man  regulates  his  eoruluct.  When  a  child  obeys  a 
parent,  we  do  not  speak  of  the  act  of  obeying:  us  a 
■princiiile  ;  but  we  may  speak  of  the  son  aa  acting  ac- 
cording to  ()rinciple  in  this.  VV  hen  Howard  exer- 
cised corni)assiou  on  the  sutifring  prisoners  in  Europe, 
we  do  not  s])eak  of  his  sell-dfuial  and  sacrifices  as  a 
principle;  but  we  sjieak  of  ihe  man  as  intiuenced  by 
principles  of  action  which  he  luid  adopted,  and  from 
which  he  had  never  swerved.  So  of  the  Christian. 
The  great  leading,  deeply  cherished,  principle  of  hia 
fOul  is  10  ot)ey  Gocl.  It  becomes  the  habitual  bent  and 
disposition  of  his  mind  ;  an  inclination  or  disposition, 
for  the  furmation  and  clierishing  of  which  he  is  re- 
sponsible— an  inclination,  or  preference,  or  disposi- 
tion which  lies  back  of  any  specific  act  of  believing, 
just  because  it  is  the  deeply-cherished  preference  of 
the  man's  soul ;  the  purpose  which  he  has  formed  thus 
to  live,  and  thus  to  act.  This  principle  is  strengthen- 
ed by  action  ;  fortified  by  repealed  exercise;  confirm- 
ed by  every  new  act  of  resisting  temptation;  until  it 
becomes  the  /a7C  of  our  renewed  nature  ;  the  indomi- 
table jirinciple  of  attachment  to  God  and  his  cause. 

My  vindication  from  this  count  in  the  charge  is  (1.) 
That  the  confession  of  faith  does  not  any  where  affirm 
that  this  faith  is  a  principle,  which  it  is  incumbent  on 
Dr.  J.  to  show  is  atfimied  ;  and  (2.)  Th;it  the  whole 
Buhject  is  one  that  jiertaius  simply  to  the  phiiosoj)hy 
of  ruind.  ami  not  to  theology.  It  would  be  ab--  proper 
for  V)i\  Junkin  to  allege  an  error  in  my  views  per- 
taining to  niemonj,  or  ima^inuliun,  or  the  powers  of 
mind  in  regard  to  abslrdclivn  or  analysis,  as  to 
charge  me  with  heresy  tor  dill'ering from  him  in  regard 
to  a  mental  operation  on  the  subject  of  faith. 

The  tnird  specification  in  this  charge  ie,  that  I  have 
taught  that  "faith  itself  is  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness." 

In  regard  to  this,  I  observe  [1.]  that  so  far  as  I  am 
rxble  to  understand  the  Apostle  Paul,  tins  is  iiis  very 
languaire  and  sense.  Rom.  iv.  3.  "Abraham  be- 
lieved God,  and  it  was  (-ouriied  unto  him,  (or  imputed 
elogisthe]  fur  righteousness."  The  word  "  it"  ia 
our  Iransl.ilion,  1  understand  as  referring  unques- 
li'-nabiy  to  the  act  of  Abraham's  mind,  since  bin 
Ktron/  act  ot'  faith  was  the  subject  and  the  only  sub- 
ject of  discussion.  That  it  siiould  refer  to  any  thmg 
else,  seemed  to  nie  to  be  a  departure  from  all  the 
proper  1  ivv.s  of  interpretation.  If  I  have  been  in  aa 
error  in  supposing  that  the  Apostle  meant  to  refer  to 
Abrabam'.s  fiiih,  or  to  his  believing,  I  am  not  unwil- 
ling to  tie  corrected.  If  my  interpn  lation  is  a  correct 
one,  thi-n  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  I  am  accu- 
sed of  heresy  that  renders  void  Dr.  Junkin's  title  to 


ArPENOix.  47 

heaven,  for  teaching  a  doctrine  in  the  express  vjordg 
of  the  Apostle  Pant,  and  liiat  those  won.'s  are  se- 
riously^ charircd  with  containing  dangerous  er.'or. 
My  defence  here  is,  that  1  coincide  wiili  the  Aposlle 
Paul  in  heliei'  on  this  subject ;  and  that  the  doctrine 
which  I  iiave  expressed  is  in  his  very  iiingurig^e.  [2.] 
I  have  not  laughi  tliat  either  Abraham's  aci  of  be- 
lievinjj,  or  liie  act  of  Ihitli  ol"  any  other  man,  is  ihe 
meritorious  ground  of  acceptance  with  God.  In  the 
very  passage  now  under  consideration,  tiiis  has  been 
disclaimed.  In  reference  to  this  we  may  remark  [1.] 
Tiiat  it  is  evidently  not  intended  that  the  act  of  believ- 
ing on  the  part  of  Abraham  was  the  vieritorious 
ground  of  acceptance.  *  *  ♦  *  [5.]  By  being  jus- 
tified by  faith,  it  is  meant,  that  we  are  treated  as 
righteous  ;  that  we  are  forgiven  ;  that  we  are  admit- 
ted to  the  favor  of  God,  and  treated  as  his  li-iends.  * 
♦  *  *  It  is  in  no  sense  a  matter  of  merit  on  our  part, 
and  thus  s'ands  disliniruished  entirely  irom  justilica- 
tion  by  works,  or  conformi'.y  to  the  law.  From  begin- 
ning to  end  it  is,  so  far  as  we  arc  co.icerned.  a  matter 
of  grace.  The  merit  b]i  which  all  this  is  obtaitud  is 
the  vrirk  of  the  Lord  Jt^sus  Christ,  through  ivhom 
this  plan  is  proposed,  and  by  xohose  atonement  alone 
God  can  consistently  pardon  and  treat  as  rip;hteous 
those  who  are  themselves  tini^odly."  The  doctrine 
which  I  have  defended  is,  that  the  merits  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  are  the  only  ground  oi"the  justification  of  a  sin- 
ner before  God  ;  and  that  in  ihis,  faith  i?  ?i  mere  instru- 
ment,a  s//2e^aano?2  in  the  work  ofjustificaiicn,  This  I 
have  taught  in  as  explicit,  language  as  possible.  Yet  I 
did  not  suppose  that  the  appointment  of  faith  in  this 
work  was  arbitrary.  I  regarded  the  want  oflaiihin 
God  in  the  earth  as  the  great  crowning  evil — produ- 
cing the  same  sad  eifeets  under  the  divine  administra- 
tion, which  the  want  of  confidence  in  a  father,  a  wife, 
aneighbor,  acommercial  house  does  in  a  community  ; 
and  that  the  grand  desider.-itum  in  a  plan  of  salvation 
was  to  restore  to  an  alienated  world  cnvfidtncr.  inthe 
existence,t'ie  ^overnvifnt,  and  the  perftclioni  of  God. 
This  Abraham  evinced;  audit  was  such  a  slate  of 
mind  as  lurnished  the  proper  evidence  of  reconcilia- 
tion, and  he  was  reckoned  as  in  fact  a  justified  man. 
His  faith  in  God  was  so  sirong  as  to  give  an  unerring 
indicati.m  thaljie  was  recovered,  and  was  reckoned  to 
him  "  for  righteousness,"  or.  "in  order  to  justifica- 
tion," just  as  faiih  is  now.  The  same  principle  of  the 
divine  administration  was  eviued  in  his  case  as  in 
ours;  acceptance  with  God  not  on  the  ground  of  faiih 
as  a  meiitorious  cause,  but  because  his  laiih  evinced 
a  state  of  mind  to  whicli  God  liad  promised  ac- 
ceptance. In  his  case,  as  in  all  others,  the  ground  of 
acceptance  with  God,  according  to  my   unwavering 


48  APPENDIX. 

view,  is  the  anticipated  or  the  arcomplished  merit  of 
the  tcrcaialoiiiii^  sacridcc,  the  Son  ol  God.  Tlie  siate- 
ment  ol' this  view,  will  orcur  more  at  len^tlj  in  another 

Kart  ol'  Miis  delence.  My  vimiicaiion  here  is  that  1 
ave  not  tauijiit  that  the  act  of  laiih  is  impcttd  as 
the  meriiorious  eround  of  acceptance  wiih  God,  but 
the  contrary.  1  may  here  remark,  that  jitrhaps  a  part 
orihe  ol)ji  ciion  to  my  glafement  will  be  removed  by 
advertiuir  10  a  coi  reciion  which  1  have  mad»^  in  my 
Notes.  P.  95.  In  the  comment  on  the  phrase  '"for 
rii;hleon?ness,"  Rom.iv.  3,  instead  of  "  as  ri^zhteous- 
nefs"  tile  corrected  ediiion  reads  "  in  ohdek  to  jus- 
tificatio.n''  ;  wiiich  more  accurately  expreeses  my 
meuniiiy,  ai'.d  avoids  an  ambiguity  in  the  exprrssioii 
which  was  ijclbre  employed.  And  also  hy  a  change 
which  has  been  made  in  the  Notes  on  p.  94.  Instead 
ol'readiiij^ — "Beyond  the  mental  operation,  tiiere  ia 
nolhiiiii  in  the  case;  and  the  word  is  siricily  hmited 
to  such  an  act  oC  the  mind  ilironorhont  the  Bible. 
There  is  not  a  place  that  can  be  adduced  where  tho 
word  means  any  thing  else  than  an  act  of  the  mind, 
exercised  in  relation  to  some  object,  or  some  jiromiee, 
or  lhreateiiini,s  or  declaration  of  some  other  lieiiig"  ; 
the  lollowing  passage  has  been  substituted  in  the 
four  til  ediiion,  viz.: — ''  While  the  wor.\  ftnfh  is  some- 
times used  to  denote  relif^inus  doclruie,  or  the  system 
that  is  to  be  btlieved  [Acts  vi.  7,  xv.  9,  Rom.  i.  5,  x.  S, 
xvi.  26,  E|)h.  iii.  17,  iv.  5,  1.  Tim.  ii.  7,  &c.].  yet  when 
it  is  used  to  denote  tiiat  which  is  required  ol  man,  it 
always  denotes  an  actinf^  of  the  mind." 

Charge  V. 

The  fifth  charge  is  in  the  ibllowing  words,  viz.: — 
Denying 

"Tliat  Gud  entered  into  covenant  with  Adam  constitulina 
him  a  f'edcrni  or  cuvi  nant  head,  and  representative  to  ail  hii 
natural  dtscenriniits." 

Proof  1.  p.  ill.  "  From  these  remarks  it  is  clear  that  tha 
apostle  does  hoI  refer  to  the  man  here  from  any  iuea  that 
there  was  any  pariicular  covenant  transactio.n  with  him  ; 
but  tint  he  means  to  speak  of  it  iti  the  usual  popular  sense  ; 
referring  to  hnn  asbtiiigilic  fountain  of  all  the  wues  that  sia 
has  introduced  into  the  world." 

Proof  2.  p.  128.  "The  most  common  (explanation)  haa 
been  that  Adam  was  the  representaiive  of  the  race;  that  ho 
was  a  covenant  htad,  and  that  lu.s  sin  was  impu  id  lo  his  pos- 
terity, and  that  they  were  held  li-ible  to  puiiibiiincni  ior  it,  as 
if  they  had  cononiiled  it  iheinstlves.  But  to  this  there  ara 
great  and  insuperable  ubjeeiions. 

(1.)  There  is  not  one  word  of  it  in  the  Cible.  Niiiher  tho 
terns  rei)r!.'.«eniniive,  covenant,  or  impute  are  ti»«r  a.ip'ied  to 
the  iiansaciion  in  the  sacr-  d  scriptures.  (2.)  It  is  a  mere  phi- 
losophical theory." 

Proofs,  p.  115.    As  quoted  under  charge  II. 

Proof  4.  p.  120,  121.     "  A  comparison  is  also  instituted  b»- 


APPENDIX.  49 

tv/een  Adam  and  Christ  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22—25.  TUc  reason  is, 
not  that  Adam  was  tlie  representative  or  federal  head  of  the 
human  race,  about  whicti  the  apoatle  says  noihing,  and 
which  is  not  even  implied,  but  that  he  was  ihe  first  of  the 
race;  he  was  the  fountain,  the  head,  the  father;  and  the  con- 
sequences of  that  first  art  introducing  sin  into  the  world,  could 
be  seen  every  where.  The  words  reprcscntalive  and  federal 
head  are  never  applied  to  Adam  in  tlie  Bible.  The  reason  is, 
that  the  word  representative  imp\ics  an  idea  which  could  not 
have  existed  in  the  case— <Acconieni  of  those  who  are  repre- 
^  tented.  Besides  the  Bible  does  not  teach  that  they  acted  in 
him,  or  by  him  ;  or  that  he  nctcd./br  them.  No  passage  has 
ever  yet  been  found  that  slated  this  doctrine." 

Proofs,  p.  129.  (2)  "  Noihing  is  said  of  a  covenant  with 
him  (.\dam).  No  where  in  the  sc'ripiures  is  the  term  covenant 
applied  to  any  transaction  with  Adam.  (3)  All  that  is  estab- 
lished here  is  the  simple  fact  that  Adam  smncd,  and  that  this 
made  it  certain  that  all  his  posterity  would  be  sinners.  Be- 
yond this  the  language  of  the  apostle  does  not  go  ;  and  all 
else  that  has  been  said  of  this  is  the  result  of  mere  philosophi- 
cal speculation.  (4)  Tins  feud  is  one  that  is  apparent ;  and 
that  accord'j  with  all  the  analogy  in  the  moral  government  of 
God.  The  drunkard  secures  comuionly  as  a  result  that  his 
family  will  be  reduced  to  beggary,  want,  and  wo.  His  sin  is 
commonly  the  certain  occasion  of  their  being  sinners;  and 
the  immediate  cause  of  their  loss  of  jjroperty  and  comfort  and 
of  their  being  overwhelmed  in  wretchedness  Knd  grief.  A 
murderer  will  entail  disgrace  and  shame  on  his  family. 

How  utterly  opposea  all  this  is  to  the  standards,  will  ap- 
pear by  reference  to  Con.  of  Faith,  Chap.  vii.  1—11,  xix.  I, 
Lar.  Cat.  20,  22,  Sh.  Cat.  12-16. 

This  charge  and  the  two  following  relate  to  the 
game  subject ;  and  can  scarcely  be  separated.  I 
ehall  endeavor,  however,  to  consider  theui,  as  they 
are  presented  by  my  accuser,  as  separate  charges. 
I  must  beg  of  the  Presbytery  to  bear  in  mind  the  rea! 
point  in  debate,  and  conoerning  vvhich»lani  accused. 
My  statement  in  my  '  Notes' is  definite,  and  ilesign- 
ed  to  be  so.  It  is  simply  Ikat  the  terms  '  covenant,^ 
'federal  headship,^  and"  representative,^  are  nut  ap- 
plied to  the  trunsaciion  with  Adam,  in  the  passage 
under  amsideration  in  viy  Notes,  nor  in.  the  Bible. 
And  the  simple  inquiry  is,  vvliciher  this  is  so,  or  is 
not — and  on  ihis,  the  Presbytery  is  to  find  a  verdict. 
That  this  is  my  statement,  1  shall  now  show.  In 
the  Notes  on  Rom.  v.  19.  I  say:  [1]  "Nothing  is 
here  said  of  the  doctrine  ot  represenianon.  li  is  iiot 
affirmed  that  Adam  was  the  representative  of  his 
race,  nor  is  that  language  Uc-ed  in  regard  lo  him  ia 
the  Bibli'.  [2j  Nothing  is  said  ol'  a  covenant  with 
him.  Nowiiere  in  the  Scripioris  is  the  leim  cove- 
nant apijlitd  1,0  any  transaction  with  Adam."  P.  128. 
And  again:  [1)  '"Neither  the  terms  representative, 
covenant,  oi  i.upute,  are  ever  applied  to  the  trans- 
action in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  [2.J  It  is  a  mere 
philosophical  theory  ;  an  introduction  o!  a  speculation 
5 


50  APPENDIX. 

into  theology,  with  an  attempt  to  explain  what  the 
Bible  luis  left  unexplained."  In  my  defence,  in  re- 
gard to  this  charge,  1  observe,  then — 

That  I  have  here  taught  the  same  doctrine  which 
I  have  hild  ever  since  I  entered  the  church  as  a  can- 
didate lor  the  ministry.  My  views  have  never  chan- 
ged on  the  subject,  that  I  can  now  recollect.  These 
views  1  aKva>s  avowed.  With  these  views  1  was 
licensed.  With  the  same  views  I  was  ordained  ;  and 
these  views,  1  h?ive  reason  to  think,  were  al- 
ways known  to  the  fathers  and  brethren  who 
introduced  me  into  the  sacred  otfice.  And  these 
views,  I  have  every  reason  to  suppose,  are  held  by  a 
very  lar^re  portion  of  the  ministers  and  members  of 
the  Presbyterian  church.  1  have  not  supposed  that, 
in  them,  I  was  advancing  any  thinsj  peculiar  ;  nor  do 
I  now  suppose  it.  Whether  it  be  Irom  early  preju- 
dice ;  or  Ironi  not  correctly  understanding  the  doc- 
trine in  ijuestion  ;  or  whether  the  language  conveys 
to  my  mind  ideas  ditferent  froai  those  conveyed  to 
ethers;  or  whether  it  be  from  want  of  apprehension 
of  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  yet  1  Irankly  con- 
fess that  I  have  always  prelerred  to  express  my 
views  of  the  rei,;tion  of  Adam  to  his  posterity  in  lan- 
guage diiferent  from  that  which  has  been  conunnnly 
employed  on  the  subject.  The  reasons  of  this.  1  shall 
state  soon.  Before  doing  that,  it  may  be  proper,  in 
few  words,  to  slate  what  1  have  (seen  accustomed  to 
hold  and  to  teach.  My  own  belief  is,  that  while  I 
have  chosen  to  m  ike  use  of  ditferent  words,  yet  that 
I  have  always  held  to  the  facts  and  essential  doc- 
trines which  are  intended  to  be  slated  in  the  Confes- 
sion ol  Faith,  and  which  are  taught  in  the  Bible. 

The  iUcts  tiien,  in  the  case,  which  I  have  supposed 
to  be  true,  are  briefly  these  : 

[1.]  That  Adam  was  created  holy;  apprised  of  his 
relations  to  God,  as  his  crtature  and  as  a  moral 
agent;  capable  of  obeying  a  law;  yet  free  to  fall. 
Gen.  i.  27. 

[2.]  That  a  simple  law  was  given  him,  designed  to 
operate  as  a  test,  by  wiiicliil should  be  known  wheth- 
er he  would  obty  or  rebel. —  Gen.  ii.  16,  17. 

[3. J  That  this  law  was  adapted  to  ilie  condition  of 
the  man — simple,  plain,  easy  to  be  obeyed  ;  r.nd  fitted 
to  give  iiuni.in  nature  a  trial  in  circumstances  as  fa- 
vorable as  ijossihie. 

[4.]  That  its  violation  exposed  him  to  the  first 
threatened  pennity — to  the  penalty  as  he  had  under- 
stood it;  and  to  ah  the  penal  collateral  woes  which 
transgression  might  involve  in  its  train — involving, 
as  subsequent  developments  have  showed,  the  loss 
of  Gtnl's;  lavor  ;  his  displeasure  evinced  on  earth,  in 
the  toil,  ;uid  cares,  and  sweat,  and  sickness  and  death 
et  man  ;  in  the  subjeciion  of  the  soul  to  hereditary 


APPENDIX.  51 

depravity  and  the  curse  ;  und  to  the  pains  of  hell  for- 
ever. 

[5  ]  That  Adam  was  the  head  of  the  race  ;  that  he 
^was  I  lie  loiiniain  of  being' ;  that  he  was  the  orij^in  of 
/'nociety  ;  and  that  luiinan  nature  was  so  litr  tried  in 
^hiin,  ill  fcivorahle  circiiniiiianc.es,  tliat  it  may  he  said 
/he  was  on  trial  not  for  himself  alone,  hot  lor  his  i)os- 
!  terity,  inasmuch  as  his  fall  would  atfoct  them,  and 
,  involve  ihem  in  ruin. 

16]  That  Ijy  a  constitution  ofdivine  appointment — 
wliich  the  trainers  of  our  Confesc?ion  call  "  a  cove- 
nant made  with  Adam,  as  a  public  person,  not  lor 
himself  only,  but  ior  his  posterity" — it  was  so  ar- 
ranged that  liis  fall  should  involve  his  posterity  in 
ruin,  without  any  exception,  save  only  tiie  Messiah; 
that  th.it  apostacy  secured  as  a  certain  result,  the 
tact  that  ail  his  posterity  would  be  sinners  and  would 
die. 

[7.]  That  his  posterity  are  subjected,  in    conse- 
qnencenf  this  act  of  Adam,  to  the  same  train  of  ills 
us  if  they  had  themstlces  persovalhj  been  the  trans- 
frressor — that  is,  that  his  posterity  are  "  indubitably 
affected."     I  use  now  the   lani^ua<?e  of  my  No  es  on 
the  Romans  (j).  122,  123):  "  By  Uie  the  sin  of  Adam, 
as  e.  g.  by  being  born  with  a  corrupt  dis|X)sition  ,  vvitli 
loss   of  righteousness;  wiih  subjtciiun    lo   pain  and 
wo."     In  tliis,   I   have   never  doubted,  that  they  are 
treated   not  as  personally  ill-deserving,  or  critninal, 
hut  are  subjected  to  the  same  train  of  evils  as  they 
would  have  been,  had  they  been  the  personal  oti'end- 
ers  ;  or  as  Adam  deserved  to  be  alter  his  fall.    And 
in  using  this  language,  it  was  my  def^ign  to  deny  that 
children  are  born  without  any  thing  that  njay  be  re- 
garded as  a  tendency  or  hereditary  disposition  to  de- 
l)ravity  ;  and  to  deny  also  that  they  become  sinners, 
as  the  Pelagians  taught,   simply  by  imitation.    By 
/hereditary  tendency,  or  disposition,  however,  I  did 
/not  mean  to  express  ray  belief  tliat  the  substance  of 
;  the  soul  was  corrupled,  or  that  the  depravity  is  phy- 
"j  sical,  or  that  it  consists  m  a  weakening  or  destroying 
J  of  the  intellectual  laculties,  or  that  it  consists  in  any 
/  created  essence  or  substance  which  is  placed  in  the 
/  Boul.    I  mean  to  say  that  there  is  sometliing — which 
1  1  do  not  profess  myself  able  to  explain — antecedent  to 
■  the  moral  action  of  the  posterity  of  Adam,  and  grow- 
ing out  of  the  relation  which  they  sustain  to  him    as 
the  head   of  the  race,   which  makes  it  certain  that 
/  they  will  sin  as  soon  as  they  begin  to  act  as   moral 
\  agents,  however  early  that  may  be.    This  heredita- 
( ry  tendency  to  sin,  1  suppose,  is  what  has  been  usual- 
,' ly  called  "original  sin;  and  the  existence  of  this  I 
have  not  denied,  but  have  always  atfirmed,  and  d  o 
now  most  firmly  hold.    What  the   precise  metaphy- 
isical  nature  of  this  is,  1  do  not  pretend  to  know  ;  but 


5'i  APPEJJDIX. 

wished  simnly  to  state  my  belief  of  the  existence  0/ 
the  fact,  that  by  a  divine  constitution  their  sinninj? 
was  made  certain  in  all  cases,  except  that  oi  the 
Messiah.  I  reject,  thereiore,  with  no  slight  impres- 
sions of  injustice  to  myself,  every  charge  which  is 
brought  of  niy  denyinj^  original  sin.  In  the  first  edi- 
tion of  my  'Kotes,'  ihe  lollowing  passages  occur, 
showing  that  i  hold  this  doctime;  viz. 

"In  like  manner,  though  men  are  indubitably  affect- 
ed by  tiie  SMI  ol  Adam,  as  e.  g.  by  bemg  born  with  a 
a  corrupt  disposition;  with  lo^:s  of  righteousness; 
"with  .-subjection  to  pain  and  wo,"  &c.     pp.  122,  123. 

"Unto  condeninulion.  Producing  condemnation  ; 
or  involving  in  condemnation.  It  is  proved  bv  this, 
that  the  effect  of  the  sin  of  Adam  was  to  involve  the 
race  in  condemnation,  or  10  secure  this  as  a  result, 
ihiil  all  mankind  would  be  under  the  condemning  sen- 
tence of  the  law,  and  be  transgressors.'     p.  124. 

"  As  the  sin  of  Adam  was  of  such  a  nature,  in  the 
relation  in  which  he  stood,  as  to  atlect  all  the  race," 
«fcc.     pp.  125.  126. 

"All  that  is  established  here  is  the  simple /ac< 
that  he  sinned,  and  that  this  made  it  certain  that  all 
his  posterity  would  be  sinners."    p.  128. 

"  The  simple  fact  in  regard  to  Adam  is,  that  he  sin- 
ned; and  that  such  is  the  organization  of  the  great 
society  of  which  he  is  the  head  and  father,  that  fiis 
sin  has  secured  as  a  certain  result  that  all  the  race 
will  be  sinners  also."    p.  129. 

"  The  apopile.  in  this  expression,  does  not  say  that 
all  have  sinned  in  Adam,  or  that  their  nature  has 
becom«  corrupt,  which  is  true.,  but  vvhich  is  not  af- 
firmed here,"  &-C.    p.  117. 

[8.]  This  constitution,  or  arrangement,  I  have  sup- 
posed was  to  be  eradicated  from  objections  on  the 
game  principle  of  the  divine  government  as  all  other 
*:imilar  facts.  Facts  like  this  are  common  every 
where  in  the  government  of  God,  and  the  dealings 
of  men — where  the  effect  of  one  man's  conduct,  sus- 
taining certain  relations  to  another,  passes  over  from 
him,  and  aliects  them  as  if  they  had  themselves  sin- 
ned. Thus  the  drunkard  commonly  secures,  a>i  a 
result,  that  his  children  will  be  beggared,  wretched, 
and  ruined  ;  e.  g.  they  are  subject  to  a  train  of  ills  on 
these  subjects  the  same  in  regard  to  their  character, 
property,  peace,  and  perhaps  health,  asiflhey,  not 
their  father,  had  been  intemperate.  So  of  the  trai- 
tor, the  murderer,  the  pirate,  and  especially  when 
such  a  man  is  at  the  head  ola  community,  or  a  race. 
This  I  regard  as  an  i7/Ms/r«Yj07i  of  the  general  ar- 
rangement in  regard  to  social  liabilities,  and  as  fully 
vindicating  the  principles  of  the  divine  administra- 
tion from  all  the  objections  which  can  be  urged 
against  it.    I  may  here  be  permitted  to  say,  that  \ 


APPENDIX.  53 

have  never  declared  nor  believed,  '  that  we  have  no 
more  to  do  with  the  bin  of  Adatn  than  with  the  ein  of 
any  other  ntan.'  In  most  important  respects,  I  re- 
{rard  our  relation  to  him  as  peculiar.  While  the 
ilealint^e  of  God  wiih  him  and  his  posterity  can  be 
vindicated  on  the  peneral  principles  ol' his  adminis- 
rraiion,  as  they  now  occur,  and  while  all  the  objec- 
tions which  have  been  tiiade  to  it  can  thus  be  remov- 
fd,  it  is  still  my  belief  that  there  is  vmch  that  is  pecu- 
liar in  his  relation  to  uj— much  that  does  not  occur  in 
the  case  of  a  traitor,  a  drunkard,  a  pirate.  O/ze  pecu- 
liarity, and  a  very  material  one,  is,  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  secured  us  a  certain  result,  the  sin  of  all  his 
l)osterity.  The  sin  ol"  a  drunken  lather,  pirate,  mur- 
derer, does  not.  The  consequence  may  follow  in 
their  cases,  and  does  often  ;  but  in  the  ca^e  of  Adam, 
it  not  only  maij,  but  it  does  inevitably  follow  always. 

Adam  was  ilie  head  or  root  of  all ;  and  his  act  had 
this  tremendous  pre-eminence,  that  it  involved  all  in 
ruin,  as  ifall  had  been  on  trial  lor  themselves,  and 
uJl  had  fallen. 

The  lUcts  occurring  under  God's  administration,  I 
have  supposed  could  be  delended  on  the  same  princi- 
l>le.  1  liave  not  supposed  thai  God  had  dilferent 
principles  in  regard  to  facts  ol  a  similar  nature.  My 
belief  has  been  that  the  same  principle  th  it  would  vin- 
dicate the  one  class,  would  vindicate  also  the  other  ; 
and  that  the  same  weapons  by  whicli  I  can  repel  the 
attacks  of  men  on  ihe  existing  order  oi' things,  Avould. 
avail  to  repel  the  attacks  of  the  infidel  on  the  state- 
ment in  the  Bible  in  regard  to  the  primeval  condition 
of  man,  and  the  organization  oi"  society.  I  have 
loved  to  contemplate  the  government  of  God  as  one  ; 
to  find  the  elements  of  the  sameadministraiion  everj 
wiiere  ,  and  to  find  the  demonstration  that  one  part 
could  be  sustained  by  the  argument  from  the  analogy 
if  acknowledged  lacts  in  all  the  divine  arrangements. 
i  have  lelt  a  reluciance,  therefore,  lo  suppose  that  I 
F^as  to  lake  a  new  and  independent  set  of  principles, 
when  approaching  the  facts  that  are  stated  in  the 
13ible,  and  have  found  nothing  that  relieved  my  diffi- 
culty by  the  use  ol  ihe  terms  "  covenant-head."  and 
"federal  relaiion."  The  facts  in  the  case  I  have 
l»een  willing  lo  leave,  as  all  others  are,  to  be  fully  un- 
derstood, perhaps,  only  in  the  clearer  light  which 
thall  attend  all  these  developements  in  a  future  world. 
These  are  the  views  which  I  have  always  held,  and 
intended  to  express  on  this  subject,  so  perpl<  xing,  and 
eo'full  of  controversy.  If  any  expressions  occur  in 
the  Notes  on  the  Romans  which  seem  to  convey  any 
ditl'erent  views,  tliey  do  not  express  the  idea  clearly 
which  I  intended  to  convey,  and  1  profess  my  willing- 
IJCBB  to  correct  them  accordingly,  if  ihey  arespecin- 
5* 


5i  APPENDIX. 

ed.  The  aimple  facts  in  tl\e  rase  I  holJ  as  fhry  are 
held  in  the  Bible,  and  in  the  Conles.sion  of  Faiih. 

[9.]  The  principles  on  which  I  have  supposed  these 
facta  may  all  be  vindicated,  1  have  stated  in  my  Notes, 
p.  129. 

The  reasons  why  T  have  not  chosen  to  use  the 
terms  in  relation  to  thie^  transaction  which  are  often 
employed,  I  shall  now  proceed,  in  few  words,  frankly 
to  state. 

1.  In  regard  to  the  term  "covenant,"  and  "cove- 
nant or  federal  head." 

[1.]  The  terms  are  never  applied  to  the  transaction 
with  Adam  in  the  Bible.  No  place  has  ever  been  ad- 
duced where  the  Hebrew  Beriih,  the  Greek  diatheke, 
or  auntheke,  or  the  English  term  covenant,  is  applied 
in  the  Scriptures  to  this  transaction.  Now,  I  would 
not  altogether  reject  the  use  of  words  which  are  not 
found  in  the  Bible,  for  there  are  important  advan- 
tages in  the  use  of  the  terms  Trinity,  Person,  &c.  as 
applied  to  the  divine  nature,  and  of  total  depravity  as 
applied  to  man,  &c.  But  assuredly  a  reluctance  to 
employ  these  terms,  provided  the  Scripture  doctrine 
be  retained,  cannot  be  charged  as  heresy.    On  this 

f  round,  1  put  my  defence  ;  and  maintain  that  while 
hold  the  substantial  fticts  which  the  Conles- 
sion  of  Faith  designs  to  state,  1  am  not  charge- 
able with  gross  heresy,  for  not  employing  a  word  that 
is  not  Ibund  in  this  connexion  in  the  Bible.  [2.J  The 
words,  to  omit  the  use  ol  vvhicli  is  here  charged  as 
heresy,  would  convey  no  idea  to  the  class  of  persons 
for  whom  1  wrote.  My  aim  was  to  benefit  mamly 
the  young;  and  I  did  not  suppose  that  it  would 
contribute  materially  to  their  inlbrniation,  to  be  told 
that  Adam  was  the  "  tederal  head"  of  his  posteri- 
ty. After  the  numberless  times  which  I  have  heard^ 
these  terms  used,  and  have  Ibund  them  in  books  of 
theology,  1  acknowledge  that  the  idea  which  they 
convey  to  me  has  never  been  as  clear  and  exj)licit  as 
could  be  conveyed  by  oiher  terms.  It  is  language  re- 
mote from  common  lile;  not  used  in  reference  to  the 
common  transactions  of  men  ;  and  very  imperlectly 
adapted  to  the  common  mind.  [3.]  The  terms  were 
not  used  in  the  passages  in  the  Kpistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, on  v/hich  I  was  commenting.  I  did  riOt  I'eel 
rayself  called  on,  therelbre,  to  make  use  of  terms 
which  the  apostle  had  not  used,  and  which  were  not 
necessary  to  give  a  fair  and  full  idea  to  his  menning. 
[4.]  The  use  of  the  terms  "  covenant,"  and  "  federal 
headship,"  applied  to  Adam,  is  remote  from  the  usual 
/signification  of  the  words.  They  naturally  imp  y  the 
j  idea  of  equality  between  the  parties,  the  notion  cf  a 
^compact  where  either  of  the  parties  should  beat 
^  liberty  to  rfec/ins  the  agreemeni.  But  it  is  evident 
that  there  could  be  no  such  equality  between  God  and 


{APPENDIX.  55 

man;  and  tliouffh  the  term  "  covenant'' is  often,  in 
the  Bible,  api)iie(l  to  transactions  bctwef-n  God  and 
men,  yet  it  i.-?  evidently  in  a  metaphoncal  eense. 
The  Hi'.brew  word,  in  accordance  wiih  a  usage  in  all 
languages,  means  properly  a  compnct,  league,  usrree- 
ment,  netween  man  and  man  [7\iylnr ,  Gesenius, 
&c.] ;  a  compact  "  which  puts-  their  atliiirs  into  a  new 
state"  [Taylor's  Heh.  Con. J;  and  implies  the  idea  of 
equality,  or  liberty  to  reject  tthe  terms,  &c.  It  oc- 
curs some  hundreds  of  times  in  the  Old  Testament, 
but  not  in  a  single  instance,  it  is  believed,  in  regard  ,'■- .^  •  "j 
Ao   the  transaction   with  Adam.    It  is  o/ifcn  applied,   ,  r  ,' 

I  indeed,   to  transactions  between  God  and  man  [See     '.v    *.,( 
1  Taylor] ;  and   when  so  used,  it  is  evidently  equiva- 
/  lent  to  law,  or  constilulion  ;  and  had  the  term  been 
\    applied  to  the  transaction  with  Adam,  it  would  have 
been  as  proper  as  its  use  in   the  other  transactions 
with  men  which  are  mentioned.    The  simple  observ- 
ation  in  my   '  Notes' is,   that  the  f/°rm  is  not  used  in 
regard  to  the  transaction  in  the  Bible  ;  and  whatever 
may   he  the  bearing  of  the  remark,  such  is  the  un- 
questionable fact.    ]5.]  To    many    minds,    the  term 
conveys  an  erroneous   idea.    It  has  been  made  the 
basis  of  false  doctrines  in  regard  to  the  sui)ject  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin.    It  coiittitufes,  in  fact,  the 
argument  by  which  many  defend  their  peculiar  views 
of  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of  Adam  on  his  posterity, 
on  the  supposition  of  a  personal  identity  between  him 
and  his  descendants.    And  there  are  many  men,  per- 
haps, who  hold  that  doctrine,  who  would  be  them- 
selves surprised  to  learn  how  entirely  their  views  are 
based  on  the  supposition  of  a  covenant  with  Adam 
of  which  the  Bible  says   nothing.     As  it  was  not  my 
intention  to  teach  that  doctrine,  it  did  not  appear  de- 
sirable to  retain  the  use  of  language   which  seemed 
to  lead    to  it.     [6.  So  far  as   1   have  examined  the 
standards,  the  phrase  "  federal  or  covenant  head" 
is  not  to  be  ibund  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  or  in  the 
Catechisms  of  the  Presbyterian  church.    Not  to  use 
them,  therefore,  cannot  be  charged  as  heresy.    [7.] 
The  Confes^sion  of  Faith  evidently  means  by  the  term 
" covenant, ^^  a.  constitution,  or  law.    Thus  in  ch.  xix. 
.   §  1,   it  says,  "  God  gave  to  Adam  &.  i.A\v,  as  a  cove- 
{    nant  of  works  by  which  he  bound  him,  and  all  his  pos- 
j    terily  to  personal,  entire,  e.sact,  and   perpetual  obe- 
\  dience,"  &c.    And  again,  §2:  "  Thi-  law,  alter  his 
'  fall  continued  to  be  a  perfect  rule  ol  righteousness." 
&c.    And  again,  §3:  "Beside  this    law,  commonly 
f,    called  moral,  God  was  pleased,"  (Sec.   In  these  places, 
J    it  is  evident  that  the  framers  of  the  Confession  did 
<    not  intend    to  use   the  term  "covenant"  in  its  strict 
'    and  proper  sense,  but  as  synonymous  with  law,  and 
as  expressive  of  the  same  thing  as  the  "  moral  law" 
which  was  given  to  Adam  as  a  moral  agent ;  and  in 


56  ArrHNDix. 

this  sense,  it  denotee  the  law,  or  conslihilion  under 
which  inun  was  placed.  My  answiT,  therefore,  is, 
[I.J  that  the  tfrm  coven  int  is  not  apphtd  to  tiie  trans- 
action in  tiie  Bibitt — which  is  all  that  1  adirined  ;  and 
[2.]  that  i  hold  the  suits  atilial  doctrine  on  the  sub- 
ject—  liie  same  Ktaicment  oi'  facts  about  the  ellect  of 
Adam's  sin  on  his  posterity  which  occurs  in  the  Con- 
fession of  Faiih. 

2.  In  resrard  to  the  other  term — "representative'* — 
I  remark  in  grcneral,  that  irs  use  wat,  avoided  lor  the 
eame  reasons  which  have  led  me  to  preter  not  to  use 
the  terms  "  covenant"  and  "  federal  head."  My  spe- 
cific defence  a:|aiiist  this  charge,  however,  is  this, 
(t/)  The  terms  representative  and  representation, 
are  not  to  be  lou.id  in  the  Bible  as  aj^phcable  to  this 
transaction.  In  expressing  mv  views  of  this  transac- 
tion, I  have  su|<posed  it  better,  lor  the  purposes 
which  I  had  in  view,  to  confine  myself  as  strictly  as 
possible  to  the  language  of  the  Scriptures.  (6)  Tlie 
term,  so  far  a~  1  knovv.  is  not  to  be  lound  in  t|je  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  or  the  Catechisms  ol  the  church,  i 
have  not  felt,  myself  called  on,  therefore,  to  make  use 
of  this  term  in  order  to  maintain  my  orthodoxy  ;  nor 
is  it  easily  seen  how  a  failure  to  do  tliis  can  be  con- 
strued into  here.'^y.  (c)  The  term  nio.st  obviously, 
and  to  most  minds  inevitably  conveys  an  idea,  which 
never  could  have  existed  in  regard  to  the  transaction 
with  Adam.  J  mean  the  consent  of  those  vlio  are 
represf-nted.  Now  it  is  evident  that  no  such  consent 
of  the  posterity  of  Adam  that  he  should  act  tor  them; 
no  appointment  of  hiin  by  themselves  to  act  as  their 
representative,  could  ever  liave  existed.  In  this 
transaction  they  were  not  consulted  ;  nor  were  they 
apprised  of  any  such  arrangement.  I  say  that  the 
word  most  obviously,  and  to  most  n)inds  inevitably 
conveys  this  idea.  A  representative  is  defined  to  be 
'■  an  aeent,  deputy,  or  substiiule,  who  supplies  the 
place  of  aiiother,  or  others,  being  invested  xnlh  his  or 
their  authority.  Webster.  This  idea  is  lamilia  r  to 
us.  An  attorney  is  the  representative  of  fiis  client,  or 
employer.  "  Attorney  is  an  ancient  Eng!i>h  word, 
and  si^nifieth  one  that  is  set  in  the  turn,  slt'ad,  or 
place  of  another, — \vho.':e  warrant  from  liis  master  is 
ponit  loco  suo  talem  attornatum  suum,  which  seitelh 
in  his  own  turn  or  place  such  a  man  to  be  his  attor- 
ney.'' Ciikf\7ipon  Littleton,  iii.  p.  352.  A  number 
ol  the  house  ol  commons,  or  of  the  house  of  rtpre- 
sentatives  is  the  representative  of  his  constiiuente. 
An  ambassador  is  the  representative  of  his  govern- 
ment or  nation  abroad.  In  all  these,  and  in  all  the 
other  casps  of  agency  i\\e  obvious  and  natuial  idea 
is,  that  there  has  been  a  deleg  ition  of  authority  or 
power  to  act  in  the  case  from  ihe  person  or  persons 
ia  behalf  of  whom  the  representative  acts.     Where 


APPENDIX.  5T 

there  is  a  departure  from  this,  or  where  ilie  agent 
exceeds  his  instruciions,  (he  represeriUdive  charac- 
ter o(  his  doings  ics  destroyed,  and  becomes  void.  ''If 
the  agent  does  what  he  is  antliofiiced  to  do.  and 
Bomethina?  more,  it  will  be  good  as  lar  as  lie  was  au- 
thorized to  fjo,  and  the  exc/ei-s  only  would  he  void." 
II.  Kent,  p.  19.  "  The  princip  I  cannoi  be  bound  if 
the  ap^ent  exceeds  his  |)ower."  Ibid  C20.  'Jhis  prin- 
ciple in  regard  to  agency,  that  the  power  to  act  is 
lounded  on  "  contract  either  express  or  icnplied,"  is 
abundantly  stated  in  the  books  that,  proless  to  treat 
on  the  subject.  I  beg  leave  parti-ularly  to  read  from 
Kent's  commentaries,  vol.  ii.  p.  613,  614,  615,  616,  617: 
"Agency  is  lounded  upon  a  contract  either  express 
or  implieii,  by  which  one  of  the  parties  confides  to 
the  other  the  management  of  some  busine^is,  to  be 
transacted  in  his  name,  or  on  his  account,  and  by 
which  the  other  assumes  to  do  the  business,  and  to 
render  an  account  of  it.  The  autiiority  of  the  agent 
may  be  created  by  deed  or  writiriii,  or  verbally  with- 
out writing  ;  and  for  the  ordinary  '  urposes  of  busi- 
ness or  commerce,  the  latter  is  sufficient.  The  agen- 
cy may  be  inferred  fiom  the  relation  of  the  parties, 
and  the  nature  of  the  employment,  without  proof  of 
any  express  appointment.  It  is  sufficient  that  there, 
f  be  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  principal  tmpLoyed 
\  the  agent,  arid  that  the  agent  undertaok  the  trust. 
{  The  extent  of  ihe  authority  of  an  agent  will  some- 
;  times  be  varied  or  extended  on  the  ground  of  implied 
('  authority,  according  to  the  pressure  of  circunistan- 
■  cee,  connected  with  the  business  with  which  he  is 
entrusted. 

"The  agency  must  be  antecedently  given,  or  sub- 
sequently adopted  ;  and  in  the  latter  case  there  must 
be  some  act  oi  recognition.  But  an  acquiescence  in 
the  assumed  agency  of  another,  when  the  acts  of  the 
agent  are  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  piimipal, 
is  equivalent  to  an  express  authority.  Thus,  where 
a  person  sent  his  servant  to  a  shop-keeper  for  lioods 
upon  credit,  and  paid  for  ihem  afterwards,  and  sent 
the  same  servant  again  to  the  same  place  for  goods, 
and  with  money  to  pay  for  them,  and  the  servant  em- 
bezzled till!  cash,  the  master  was  held  answerable 
for  the  goods,  for  he  had  given  credit  to  his  servant^ 
by  adopting  his  former  act.  It  is  the  prior  conduct  of 
the  principal  that  afl'ords  just  ground  to  infer  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  agency  in  tluit  particular  business; 
and  the  rule  is  founded  on  obvious  principles  of  jus- 
tice and  policy." 

It  has  been  said  indeed  that  a  representative  may- 
be appointed  to  act  lor  a  people,  very  I'ew  of  whom 
concur  in  his  appointment.  Thus  it  is  said  that  "  Un- 
der the  British  constitution,  not  a  twenty-fifth  part 
uf  the  people  have  the  right  of  sutlrage,  and  yet  the 


58  APPENDIX. 

parli:\mfiU  is  regarded  as  rcpresenliiig  tlie  whole  na- 
tion, and  their  acts  binding  on  all.  in  France  the 
proportion  is  elill  legs.  And  in  our  owncouniry  not 
more  than  one-sixth  of  (he  people  have  a  voice  in  the 
choice  of  Ihe  representatives  of  the  people."  Bih. 
Rep.  vii.  333.  3b'4.  To  Ihis,  the  re|)ly  is  obvious.  Co7i- 
grnt,  cuHtrdCt  ci'  some  kind  is  essential  to  the  idea  of 
representation  in  Enjriand,  P'rance,  and  America 
alike.  Tlie  moment  a  ni;in  should  claim  the  rieht  of 
a -ting  as  reprf  senlative  without  {he  proper  I'tirni  of 
consent,  and  contract,  his  claim  would  be  rpj(  cled  at 
once.  Furtiier.  it  is  in  fact,  in  ihese  cases  a  roniract 
not  only  wilh  the  parly  who  may  appoint,  or  (he  small 
number  of  voters,  but  it  is  the  consent  of  the  nation 
who  have  adopted  the  constitution  that  it  .*/*«// fie 
thus  eoveriied.  FiVery  man  who  chooses  to  live  un- 
der such  a  iToveriiment  trives  his  conncvt  to  this  ar- 
ranirement  ;  and  riiouirh  he  may  have  his  preferences 
in  regard  to  individuals,  yet  he  consents  that  the  man 
who  shall  be  chosen  in  accordance  with  the  provi- 
sions of  the  constitution,  shall  be/J^^•  representative, 
and  consents  to  be  bound  by  his  acts.  The  moment 
this  doctrine  is  denied,  the  idea  of  representation 
ceases.  If  he  does  not  covupiit  to  be  bound  by  his  acts, 
thoujrh  he  miirht  individu;\lly  iirefer  another,  one  of 
two  thinffs  would  follwiv  either  he  must  withdraw 
from  the  nation  and  place  himsell  beyond  its  jurisdic- 
tion, or  he  must  be  ree-.irded  as  rearing  the  standard 
of  rebellion,  and  defy  its  laws. 

There  is  a  more  remote  sense  in  which  the  word 
reptesentdtiee  is  sometimes  used,  though  in  a  loose 
and  unauthorized  manner.  It  is  where  it  is  applied 
to  a  g-uardian  in  law  to  manage  the  atikirs  of  a  mi- 
nor. [Bib.  Hep.  vii.  334.]  But  in  this  case  the  idea  of 
Vfprtsentation  ceases,  and  it  is  believed  that  the 
term  is  not  applied  to  the  transaction  in  the  hooks 
wliich  treat  on  the  subject.  The  idea  of  guardian- 
ship, not  of  representation,  is  that  which  is  conveyed 
an(i  retained  in  the  appointment.  Tiie  court  of  chan- 
cery acting  lor  the  country  takes  the  place  ol  the  natu- 
ral parent,  to  do  what  the  natural  parent  would  do, 
ant]  makes  the  appointment,  and  as  the  true  idea  in 
relation  to  m/  parent's  acting  is  not  that  he  is  my 
representative,  so  is  the  true  idea  of  a  guardian.  See 
II.  Kent,  219.  Wlio  uould  think  of  calling  his /o^/jer 
liis  representative  ?  In  what  laws,  or  language  of 
men,  is  this  term  used  in  this  relation?  In  testamen- 
tary guardianship,  where  a  guardian  is  appointed  by 
the  will  ot  a  father,  Ihe  euardian  might  be  called  the 
representative  of  the  liiiher,  though  this  language  is 
not  in  (act  used  in  the  courts,  but  in  no  conceivable 
sense  as  the  representative  oflhe  child.  See  II  Kent 
22J.  A  tffful  representative  is  never  an  ancestor,  a 
parent,  or  a  guardian,  but  au  hdr  is  in  law  called  a 


APPENDIX.  59 

leff.ll  representative,  as  he,  by  a  fiction  of  the  old  Ro- 
man law  is  siip|)os('.(l  to  represent  the  pfison  of  the 
ancestor,  where  it  was  held,  as  Kent  says,  "  hy  a 
Btranjje  feature  of  law,  that  the  lieir  wati  tlie  same 
per.son  as  the  ancestor."  IV".  Kent  279.  Ariectcd  I 
may  be  with  i.he  loss  of  character,  properly,  an<l 
healih,  by  the  conduct  of  a  father  or  a  guardian,  yet 
it  is  not  hy  tlie  idea  oi'  representarion,  bni,  by  a  con- 
stitution of  thirig-s  lo  be  called  by  anotlier  name.  I  do 
not  regard  myself  as  blameworthy,  nor  do  1  suppose 
that  the  appointment  to  act  as  a  representative,  was 
ever  made.     Comp.  11.  Kent  219,  &c. 

Now,  I  admit,  that  to  this  arrangement  in  human 
government,  and  in  the  divine  goverrnnent,  I  cheer- 
fully submit.  I  admit  the  authority  ol'  a  court  to  ap- 
point a  man  to  act  as  guardian  in  the  place  ol  the 
natural  parent,  or  as  the  representative  of  the  state, 
wlio  on  the  death  li  the  parent  becomes  in  loco  pa-^ 
rentis  to  the  child.  I  admit  the  perfect  propriety  of 
God's  appointing  the  existing  state  of  things  as  a  mo- 
ral governor,  atid  so  ordaining  as  that  the  conduct  of 
Adam  should  alfect  the  ch.iracier  and  de.>tiiiy  ol  all 
his  posterity  ;  but  to  call  either  the  one  or  the  other 
a  representative,  is  a  violation  of  one  of  the  essential 
principles  of  such  a  representation;  it  stands  apart 
I'rorn  the  common  use  of  language;  from  the  conmion 
sense  of  men  ;  and  from  an  original,  deeply  fixed  prin- 
ciple in  the  human  mind  ;  and  in  all  law  this  consent 
or  appointment  is  essential  to  all  proper  ideas  of  agen-. 
cy,  or  representation. 

With  great  propriety,  therefore,  and  in  entire  ac- 
cordance with  all  the  modes  of  speech  and  thinking 
among  men,  has  the  Bible — and  the  Confession  of 
Faitli  also — abstained  Irom  the  use  of  the  term  repre- 
sentative as  applied  to   the  transaction   with  Adam. 
How   my  neglecting  to  employ  such  a  term  can  be 
construed  as  heresy,  is  a  question  of  difficult  solution. 
Our  Conlession  of  Faith  wasilrawn  up  by  men  ad- 
1    mirably  skilled  in  the  use  of  language.     The  terms 
/    which  are  employed  are,   usually  at  least,  employed 
f    with  great  precision,   and   with   adniirable    guards 
^  against  misconstruction.     The  men   who  IV mied  it 
1  were  profoundly  acquainted  with  the  English  unirue, 
I  and  express^■d  their  ideas  with  great  accurac/.  That 
>  the  term  is  found  in  books  of  theology  is  undeniable; 
but  tlie  only  inquiry  ot  any  moment  here  is,  whether 
it  is  to  be  found  in  tlie  Bible,  or  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
The  use  of  the  term  in  the  books  of  theology,  1  have 
ventured  to  call  a  mere  "  philosjophical  speculation." 
Notes,  p.  128.     Whether  in  thus  urging  the  propriety 
of  using  language  as  it  is  found  in  common  lil'e,  in  the 
lexicons,  in  books  of  law,  the  Bilde,  and  the  Confes- 
sion ot  Faith,  I  have  acted  erroneously,  remains  for 
the  Presbytery  to  judge. 


60  APPENDIX. 

Such  was  the  defence  in  refrnrd  to  this  charge  which 
[I  made  before  the  Presbytery.  In  that  defence,  1 
judged  it  proper,  as  my  trial  was  to  be  on  the  "  Notes 
on  the  Iluinans"  as  they  were  at  first  pubhslied,  to 
state  the  reasons  wliy  ihe  sialemenis  were  made 
which  I  did  make.  On  tiiat  defence  the  Presbytery 
acquiiteil  me  of  holding  atiy  dangerous  error,  or  here- 
sy ;  or,  in  other  vvords,  judged  that  1  had  not  depart- 
ed materially  from  the  'system  of  doctrine  taughi  in 
the  holy  Scripiurcs."  Since  that  time,  however,  I 
have  made  some  changes  in  the  exceptionable  passa- 
ges in  the  Notes  on  the  Romans,  which  1  trust  will 
remove  all  cause  o(  oH'ence,  and  produce  peace.  Those 
changes  I  have  made  for  reasons  which  I  have  stated 
in  the  prefaci'  to  the  corrected  edition,  and  which  are 
briefly  i  hese  :  1.  Some  ol  the  expressions  in  the  ibrmer 
editions  had  been  misunderstood;  some  1  have  since 
seen  to  hive  been  ambiguous;  and  some  have  given 
oH'ence.  1  have  found  that  without  abandoning  any 
principle  of  interpretation,  or  any  views  of  doctrine, 
which  1  wished  lo  express,  I  could  change  them  in  a 
manner  that  would  more  clearly  convey  my  meaning. 
2.  A  sincere  desire  to  do  all  in  my  power  to  allay  ex- 
citement, and  to  produce  peace,  and  restore  confidence 
in  the  churches,  has  led  to  the  wish  to  make  my  work 
as  little  exceptionable  as  possible.  Where  brethren 
have  been  olfended;  where  the  expressions  Avere 
ambiguous,  or  where  a  dilferent  phraseology  would 
remove  the  cause  of  offence,  I  have  lelt  it  my  duty  and 
priviieffe  to  make  a  change,  and  have  tlone  it.  3. 
The  trial  before  the  Presbytery  showed  exactly 
where  changes  were  desirable, il  ihey  could  be  made. 
It  made  me  acquainted  with  the  precise  nature  and 
extent  of  the  objections  to  the  book.  Belore  this  trial 
I  could  not  have  made  them  so  well:  and  after  the 
charges  were  brought,  and  while  the  trial  was  pend- 
ing, 1  felt  that  it  would  appear  iis  if  I  were  driven  to 
an  abandonment  ol  principle,  if  I  should  make  the  al- 
terations. When  the  trial  was  complete,  and  my 
Presbytery  had  acquitted  me,  I  then  i'eli.  that  it  was  a 
proper  time  for  me  to  endeavor  to  allay  the  excite- 
ment, and  to  filence  tJie  voice  of  alarm.  The.  motives 
which  led  to  those  changes,  were,  a  sincere  de- 
sire lo  do  all  in  loy  power  to  promote  peace,  and  to 
make  my  work  better.  Both  I  thought  might  he  done, 
and  the  attempt  has  been  sincerely  n)ade,  with  an  ex- 
pectation that  the  alterations  might  be  satisiactory 
to  all. 

In  the  changes  which  have  been  made  on  this  sub- 

iect,  I  desire  it  may  be  distinctly  adverted  to,  that  I 
lave  omitted,  1.  Ail  that  has  been  excepted  against, 
in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  words  "  covenant  head," 
and  "  representative."  In  place  of  the  siateaients  on 
this  subject  vvhicii  have  given  offence,  other  state- 


Al'PKNDl^C.  61 

tlientB  have  been  introduced,  which  accord,  bo  fur  as 
I  know,  wilh  the  doctrines  e^ery  where  now  held, 
which  express  views  ihat  I  I  ave  always  enlertain- 
ed,  but,  wliich,  1  admit,  were  n  Jt  fully  expressed  in  the 
former  editions.  2.  Tlie  exception  which  was  taken 
to  the  expression  in  the  Confession  of  Kaitii,  "  they 
tinned  in  him, "[p.  H7j  has  been  removed,  and  in  the 
place  of  that,  the  followinj?  phraseology  has  been 
substituted,  viz.  [p.  117.]  "As  his  posterity  had  not 
then  an  existence,  they  could  not  commit  actual  trans- 
.*?ression.  Sin  is  the  transirregsion  of  tiie  law  by  a 
moral  ix^ent;  nnd  as  the  interpretalioji  'because  all 
have  sinned'  meets  the  argunumt  of  the  apostle,  and 
as  the  Greek  favors  that  certainly  as  rauck  as  it  does 
the  other,  ii  is  to  be  preferred."  On  this  subject,  it  is 
Jioped  that  all  cause  of  ottence  is  taken  away.  And 
as  that  was  the  only  expression  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  to  which  exception  was  for  molly  taken  in  the 
Notes  on  tlie  Romans,  the  change  which  is  now  made 
Jias  removed  all  cause  of  otfence  on  this  siibjcct.  3. 
A  similar  change  has  been  made  in  pp.  120,  121,  on 
which  the  fifth  charge  is  partly  based,  where  it  was 
denied  that  Adam  "  was  the  federal  head,  or  repre- 
sentative of  the  race.*'  Instead  o(  this  statement, 
the  following  has  been  substituted,  in  which  that  de- 
nial is  wholly  omiited,  viz.:  pp.  12u,  121.  "  The  rea- 
.  son  is,  that  Adam  was  the  first  of  the  race;  he  was 
(the  fountain,  the  head,  the  father;  and  the  conse- 
7quences  of  that  first  act  could  be  seen  every  where. 
|By  a  divine  constitution  the  race  was  so  connected 
jwitli  him  that  it  was  made  certain,  that  if  he  lell,  all 
/would  come  into  the  world  with  a  nature  depraved, 
[  and  subject  to  calamity  and  death,  and  would  be  treat- 
Sed  as  if  fallen,  and  his  sin  would  thus  spread  crime, 
and  wo,  and  death,  every  where.  The  evil  effects  ot 
Hhe  apostacy  were  every  where  seen  ;  and  the  object 
of  the  Apostle  was  to  show  that  the  plan  of  salvation 
was  adapted  to  meet  and  more  than  countervail  'he 
evil  ellecls  of  the  fall.  He  argued,  &c."  4.  In  regard 
to  the  relation  which  Adam  sustained  to  his  posterity, 
a  very  iinportant  change  has  been  made  in  this  edition. 
The  128th  page,  in  which  the  excep:ionable  state- 
ments were  made,  on  Vv'hich  the  charge  is  based,  has 
been  entirely  cancelled,  and  the  following  substituted 
in  its  place,  viz. : 

"Tlie  following  remarks  may  express  the  doctrines 
which  are  established  by  this  much-contested  and 
difficult  passage.  I.  Adam  was  created  holy;  capa- 
ble of  obeying  law  ;  yet  free  to  fall.  2.  A  law  was 
given  him  adapted  to  his  condition — simple,  plain, 
easy  to  be  obeyed,  and  fitted  to  give  human  nature  a 
trial  in  circumstances  as  favorable  as  possible.  3.  Its 
violation  exposed  him  to  the  threatened  penalty  as 

6 


62  APPENDIX. 

he  had  understood  it,  and  to  all  the  collateral  woes 
which  it  might  carry  in  its  train — involving,  as  sub- 
sequent developenients  showed,  the  loss  ofGod'e  fa- 
vor; his  displeasure;  evinced  in  man's  toil,  and  sweat, 
and  sickness,  and  death  ;  in  hereditary  depravity,  and 
the  curse,  and  tlie  pains  ot'heil  forever.  4.  Adam  was 
the  head  of  the  ract- ;  he  was  the  fountain  of  bein;sr ; 
•■and  human  nature  was  so  far  tried  in  him  tiiat  it  may 
(  be  said  he  was  on  trial  noi  for  himself  alone.,  but  for 
[his  posterity,    inasmuch  as  his   lail  would    involve 
SthcHi  in  ruin.    Many  have  chosen  to  call  this  a  cove- 
/nant,  and  to  speak  of  him  as  a  lederal  head;  and  if 
( the  above  account  is  the  idea  involved  in  these  terms, 
the  explanation  is  not  exceptionable.    As  the  wora 
covenant,  however,  is  not  applied  in  the  transaction 
in  the  Bible,  and  as  it  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood, 
others  prefer  to  speak  of  it  as  a  /aw  given  to  Adam, 
and  as  a  divine  consi.iiution  under  which  he  was  pla- 
ced.   5.  His  posterity  are,  in  consequence  of  his  sin, 
subjected  tc  llie  same  train  of  ills  as  if  they  hud  been 
personally  t'le  transo;ressor9.    Not  that  they  are  re- 
garded as  personally  ill-deserving,  or  criminal  for  his 
sin.    God  reckons  thui^s  as  they  are,  and  not  falsely, 
[see  Note  ch.  iv.  3,]  and  his  iniputations  are  all  ac- 
cording to  trutli.    He  regarded  Adam  as  standing  at 
the  head  of  tlie  race;  and  regards  and  treats  all  his 
posterity  us  coming  into  the    world  subject  to  pain, 
anddeat;;,  and  depravity,  as  a  consequence   of  his^ 
ain.  See  Note,  p.  V.IZ.    This  is  the  Scriptural  idea  of 
imputation;  and  this   is  what   has    been  commonly 
meant  when  it  has  been  said  that  "  the  guilt  of  his 
first  sin — not  ike  sin  itself — "is  imputed  to  his  pos- 
terity."'   6.    There  is  something  antecedent  to   the 
, moral  action  of  his  posterity,  and  growing  out  of  the 
relation  which  they  sustain  to  him,  whicli  makes  it 
[Certain  that  they  will  sin  as  soon  as  they  begin  to  act 
as  moral  agents.     What  this  is  we  may  not  be  able 
to  say;  but  we  may  be  certain  that  it  is  not  physical 
1  depravity,  or  any  created  essence  of  the  soul,  or  any 
.  thing  which  prevents  the  hrst  act  of  sin  from  being 
i  voluntary.     This  hereditary  tendency  lo  sin  h.is  'leen 
''usually  called  "  Original  Sin;"  and  this  the  apostle 
evidently  teaches.    7.  As  an  infant  comes  into    ihe 
world  with  a  certainty  that  he  will  sin  as  soon  as  he 
becomes  a  moral  ajjent  here,  there  is  the  same  cer- 
tainty that  if  he  were  removed  to  eternity  he  would 
sin  there  also  unless  he  were  changed.    There  is, 
therefore,  need  of  the  blood  of  the  atonement  and  of 
the  agency  ol  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  an  infimt  maj    be 
saved.     8.  The/at/s  here  stated  accord  with  all  the 
analogy  in  the  moral  government  of  God.  The  drunk- 
ard secures  as  a  result  commonly  that  his  liimily  will 
be  reduced  to  beggary,  want,  and  woe.    A  pirate,  or 


APPENDIX.  63 

a  traitor  will  whelm  not  himpeif  only,  but  his  family 
in  ruin.  Such  ia  the  great  law  or  constitution  on 
which  society  is  now  organized  ;  and  we  are  not  to 
be  surprised  that  the  same  principle  occurred  in  the 
primary  organization  of  human  ad'airs.  9.  As  this  is 
the  fact  every  where,  the  analogy  di.^arnie  all  objec- 
tions which  have  bceti  made  against  the  Scri|)tural 
statements  of  the  elfer  is  of  the  pin  of  Adam.  If  just 
now,  it  was  just  thev.  If  it  exists  now,  it  existed 
then. 

These  passages  express  my  real  senlimcnts;  and 
are  now  a  part  of  the  book.  So  far  as  I  know,  they 
express  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible;  and  tlie  main  or 
essential  doctrine  of  Calvinism  as  set  forth  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  as  understood  by  (he  great 
mass  of  ministers  in  the  Presbyterian  church.  All 
that  can  be  reasonably  asked  of  a  man  who  has  in  any 
manner  expressed  himself  so  as  lo  be  misapprehend- 
ed, or  so  as  to  give  oHence,  is  that  the  cause  of  the 
offence  should  be  removed.  Desirous  of  doing  this, 
and  of  stating  more  clearly  what  I  !iave  always  be- 
lieved, I  have  made  the  alterations  noticed  above, 
and  which  I  believe  will  be  satisfttctory  to  the  great 
mass  of  ministers  and  members  of  the  churches.  I 
may  just  remark,  that  those  alterations  were  made 
before  the  meeting  of  th«  Synod,  and  that  this  state- 
ment was  designed  to  constitute  a  part  of  my  defence.] 
Charge  VI. 
The  sixth  charge  is,  "  Thai  I  deny  that  the  first  sin  of  Adam 
is  impu'-od  to  his  posterity." 

f:  Proof  1.  p.  10.  "  A  melancholy  instance  of  this  [substituting 
theory  for  fact]  we  have  in  the  account  which  the  apostle 
gives  (ch.  V.)  about  the  effect  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  The  simple 
fact  is  stated  that  that  sin  was  followed  by  the  sin  and  ruin  of 
all  his  posterity.  Vet  he  ofTers  no  explanation  of  the  fact. 
He  leaves  it  as  indubitable;  and  as  not  demanding  an  ex- 
planation in  his  argument,  perhaps  as  not  r  Jmitting  it.  This 
13  the  whole  of  his  doctrine  on  that  subject.  Yet  men  have 
not  been  satisfied  with  that.  They  have  sought  for  a  theory 
to  account  for  it.  And  many  suppose  they  have  found  it  in 
the  doctrine  that  the  sm  of  Adam  is  imputed,  or  set  over  bv  aa 
arbitrary  arrangement  to  beings  otherwise  innocent,  and  that 
they  are  held  to  be  responsible  for  a  deed  committed  by  a 
man  thousands  of  years  before  they  were  born.  This  is  the 
theory,  and  men  insensibly  forget  that  it  is  -mere  theory." 

Proof  2.  p.  117.  (3.)  "It  comports  wiih  the  apostle's  argu- 
ment to  siate  a  cause  why  all  died,  and  not  to  slate  that  rnen 
sinned  iri,  Adam.  It  would  require  an  additional  statement 
to  see  how  that  could  be  a  cause.  (4)  The  expression,  'in 
whom  all  have  sinned,'  conveys  no  intelligible  idea.  As  men 
had  not  an  existc  ice  then  in  any  sense,  they  could  not  then 
sin.  What  idea  is  conveyed  to  men  of  common  understand- 
ing, by  the  expression,  'they  sinned  in  him?'  The  meaning 
of  the  expression,  therefore,  clearly,  is,  because  all  have  sin- 
ned all  die." 


61  APPENDIX. 

"I  understand  it,  tlierefore,  as  referring  to  the  fact,  that  men 
sin,  sin  in.  their  ownpcrsoris — sin  themselves — bs  nideod,  how 
can  the)  sin  in  any  other  way? — and  that  therefore  they 
die." 

Proo'  3.  p.  119.  "  Tiie  diflorence  contemplated,  Rom.  .x.  14, 
is  not  that  Adam  was  an, actual  einner,  and  that  ihci/  liad  sin- 
ned only  by  impulation.  For  (1).  The  expression  to  sin  by 
imputation,  is  unintelligihle  and  conveys  no  idea.  (2)  The 
apostle  makes  no  such  distinction  and  conveys  no  such  idea. 
(3)  His  very  object  is  diliereut.  It  is  to  show  that  they  wcra 
fctual  sinners  ;  tlial  they  irrinsgrcssid  law;  and  the  proof  of 
this  is  that  llicy  died.  (4.)  It  is  utterly  absurd  to  suppose 
Qthat  mm  from  the  time  ot  Adam  to  JMoscs  were  sinners  onlrf 
T.by  imputation." 

Proof  4.  p.  119.  "Death  reigned;  and  this  proves  that  they 
were  sinners.    If  it  should  be  said  that  the  death  of  infants 
would  prove  that  they  were  sinners  also,  1  answer— (a)  That 
this  was  an  inference  which  the  apostle  does   not  draw,  and 
for  which  he  is  not  res^ponsible.     li  is  not  aCirmcd  by  him. 
(b)  If  it  did  refer  to  infants,  whal  would  it  prove?    Not  that 
the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed,  but  that  ihey  were  personally 
guilty  and  transgressors.     For  this  is  tlje  only  point  to  which 
the  argument  tend*.    The  apoi-tle  says  not  one  word  about 
imputation.    He  does  not  even  refer  to  infants  by  name;  nor 
does  he  here  introduce  at  all  the  doctrine  of  imputation.    All 
this  IS  mere  philosophy  introduced  to  explain  difficulties;  but 
whether  true  or  false  ;  whether  tlse   theory   explains  or  em- 
barrasses the  subject,  it  is  not  needful  here  to  inquire.  (31  The 
very  expression  here   is   against   the   supposition  that  iniants 
are  intended,-and  thai  the  sin  of  AJani  is  imputed  to  them. 
The  doctrine  of  impulation  has  been,  that  infants   were  per- 
Bonally  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  ;  that  they  ■  sinned  in  him  ;'  that 
;  there  was  a  personal  identity  consiitutt'd  between  them  and 
;  Adam,  (see  F/lwards  on  original  sin) ;  a  id  that  therefore  his 
\tin  was  thdr-i  as  really  and  truly  as  if  committed  by  them- 
Welve  .    Yet  here  the  apostle  says  that  those  of  whom  he  was 
(speaking  had  noi  sinned  'after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression.   But  if  ihedocirine  of  imputation  be  true,  ii  is  cer- 
/tain   that  they  not  only  had  sinned   after  the  similitude  of 
'^  his  transaressiijn,  but  had  sinned  the  very  identical  sin.     It 
was  precisely  like  him  ;  it  was  the  very  thing  itself:  and  they 
^were  answerable  for  thai  very  sin  as  their  own.    This  doc- 
/  trine,  therefore,  cannot  be  intended  here." 

Proof  5.  p.  121.  "Nor  have  we  a  riyhr  to  oMW7/ie  tiiat  this 
[vcr.  151  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  the  sin  tf 
Adam  to  his  poGteri!y.  For  (I)  the  apostle  says  nothing  of 
it.  (2)  That  doctrine  is  nothing  but  an  effort  lo  explain  the 
■manner  of  an  event  which  the  apostle  Paul  did  not  think  it 
proper  to  attempt  to  explain.  (3)  That  doctrine  is  in  fact  no 
explanation.  It  is  introducinir  an  add  lional  d  fliculty.  For 
to  say  that  I  am  guilty  of  the  sin  of  another  in  which  I  had 
no  agency,  is  no  explanation,  but  is  involving  me  in  addition- 
al difficulty  still  n;ore  tierplexiug,  to  ascertuia  how  such  a 
doctrine  can  po?silly  be  just." 

Proofs,  p.  127.  ''The  word  is  in  no  instance  used  to  ex- 
press the  idea  of  imputing  that  to  one  which  bclonf^s  to  another. 
It  here  either  means,  that  this  was  by  a  constitution  (if  divine 


APPENDIX. 


65 


appointment  that  they  in  fact  became  sinners,  or  simply  de- 
clares they  were  so  in  fact.    There  is  not  the  slightest  inti- 
mation that  It  was  by  imputation." 
Proof  7.  p.  128.  As  quoted  under  V.  p.  10. 
How  inconsistent  all  this  is  with  the  Standards,  will  be 
seen  in  Con.  Chap.  VI.  iii.  iv.    Lar.  Cat.  22,  25.     Sh.  Cat.  18. 
My  general  reply  to  this  charge  is,  that   it  is  no 
where  taught  in  the  Coiifes.-ion  of  Faith  that  "the 
first  ein  of  Adam"  was   "  imputed  to   his  ])oslerity ;" 
or  that  his  sin  at  all  was  imputed.     The  doctrine  ia 
there  stated  to  be  that  "  the  guilt  of  this  ein  was  im- 
puted, and  the  same  death  in  sia  and  corrupted  na- 
ture conveyed  to  all  their  posterity  descending,'  froin 
them  by  ordinary  generation."  Conf.  of  Faith  ch.  vi. 
^  3.  And  Lar.  Cat.  q.  25.    "  The  sintuiness  of  that 
estate  whereinto  man  liill,  consisteth  in  the  GuiLTof 
Adam's  first  sin,"  &c.    And  Sh.  Cat.  q.   18.     This 
may  appear  to  be  a  minute  distinction,  but  it  is  a  real 
-  one,  au  accurate  one,  and  a  very  material  one.     To 
limimt    ■milself  to  a  man  is  one  thing  ;  to  impute  the 
[obligation  to  punishment,  is  another  thing.     The  lat- 
/  ter  is  the  doctrine  of  the   standards;  the  former  is 
^  not.    And  the  fact  that  the  denial  of  the  former,  is 
charged  on  me  as  a  departure  from  the  standards, 
shews,  with  other  things,  the  exceedingly  loose  and 
ill-digested  manner  in  which  these  charges  have  been 
ilrawn  up. 

But  in  order  to  meet  this  charge  more  fully,  it  is 
necessary  for  me  to  explain  a  little  more  at  length 
what  I  actually  meant  to  deny  in  the  portions  of  my 
books  which  are  referred  to.  In  order  to  this,  it  is 
proper  to  observe  that  there  have  been  three  princi- 
pal theories  defended  in  regard  to  the  relation  whidi 
we  sustain  to  Adam. 
The  lirst  is,  that  wh'ch  may  be  denominated  as  the 

(doctrine  of  tlie  abler  Calvinistic  writers.    It  consists 
in  the  statement  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  not 
condemned  for  his  sin  as  being  the  sin  of  another 
/charged  on  them,  but  as  truly  and  properly  theirs  ; 
]that  they  are  subject  to  condemnation  not  as  in  them- 
/  selves  innocent   beings  made  guilty   by  imputation, 
(but  as  being  guilty,  or  ill-deserving,  and  thus  con- 
demned, for  a  sin  which  ^Aey  are  reckoned  to  have 
committed  in  their  head  and  representative ;  that  they 
are  regarded  as  having  in  fact  committed  that  sin, 
land  as  deservedly  lo  be  punished  for  it.    According 
]to  tills   view,  God's    imputations  are  according  to 
{truth,  and  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  condemned  be- 
y cause  they  c/ese/'re  to   be  condemned;  and   are  per- 
iBonally  blameworthy  for   Adam's   sin  as  being  one 
'with  him,  so  that  it  is  in  fact  their  own.  In  order  to  ex- 
plain and  defend  this,  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine 
resorted  to  the  theory  that  there  is  a  personal  identi- 
ty constituted  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  in  the 
6* 


66  APPENDIX. 

same  way  as  God  has  "  arbitrarily"  [Edwards]  con- 
stituted an  identity  between  A.  wUen  a  child,  and  A. 
■when  forty  years  ol  a;?e ;  l>y  uhich  A.  at  I'oriy  ia  re- 
ppontible  lor  tlie  acts  ol"  A.  at  twelve  ;  Ix-'cause,  hav- 
ing been  constituted  the  same  person  he  deserves  to 
be  BO  lield  as  responsible.  In  like  manner,  it  was  held, 
that  by  an  "  arbitrary"  arran^^ement,  or  constituiion, 
an  identity  was  constituted  between  Adam   and  his 
posterity,  so  that  they  are  to  be  held   responsible  for 
his  acts.     The  peculim  ity  ol'  this  theory,  in  contra^ 
distinction  from  that  which  I   shall   next  mention  is, 
that  men  are  condemned  not  for  the  sin  of  another, 
but  for  a  sin  which  is  truly  and  properly  theirs  ;  that 
they  are  blarncworthy  for  the  sin  of  Ad;im  ;  that  they 
are  subjected  to  punishmtat  for  it  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple fs  the  murderer  of  yesterday  is  punished  to  day 
for  the  crinie;  that  God  s  imputations  are  therefore 
etriclly  according  to  truth  ;  that  he  reckons  things  as 
they  are;  and  adjudges  those  to  be  guilty  only  who 
^  are  guilty.    In  this  tlioory,  therefore,  when  the  older 
/  writers  speak  of  impntativn,  they  mean  that  God  im- 
\  putes  to  men  only  what  properly  belongs  to  them; 
''  when  they   say  we  arc  guilt;^   of  Adam's  sin,  they 
mean  that  we  are  under  obligation   to  puni -hment 
strictly  for  antecedent  crime mvI  ill-desert;  and  when 
they  spe;ik  of  j)unishmont,  thty  me  n  those  penal  ills 
which  are  the  proper  expression  of  the  indignation  of 
.■  a  moral  governor  against  personal  demerit  and  cf  inie. 
Every  thing  in  this  theory  is   consistent,  and  carried 
out,  and  language  is  used  iu  its  obvious  and  acknow- 
ledged sense. 
V    It  has  been  denied  that  this  doctrine  was  that  of  the 
older  Calvinisis.  fSee   Bib.  Rep.  v^.  327—331 ;  ii.  43G 
— 439,  &c.]     I  admit  that  there  ia%onie  contusion  ol 
language  in  the  older  writers,  and  that  perhaps  then- 
statements  are  not  always  consistent.    My  object  is 
to  show,  by  extracts,  that  this  was  a  theory  that  was 
held. 

I  begin  with  E  hvards,  who  in  a  profound  treatise 
on  original  sin,  may  be  presumed  to  have  exatnined 
the  statements  of  his  predecfessors.  His  doctrine  is 
in  the  following  words: 

"  I  think  it  would  go  far  towards  directing  us  to  the 

more  clear  c  inception  and  right  statement  of  tliic? 

afl'air,  v/ere  \:     steadily  to   bear   this  in  mind:  That 

God  in  ever;    .lep  of  Ids   proceeding  with  Adam,  in 

relation  to  ti-if  covenant  or  constitution  established 

with. him,  louhcd  on  his  po.sierity  as  being  onewit't 

^   him.    And  though  he  dealt  more  immediately  with 

,  Adam,  it  yet  was  as  the  head  of  the  whole  body,  and 

£  thereof  of  the  whole  tree;  and  in  his  proceedings 

/  with  him  he  dealt  with  all   the  branches  as   if  they 

/\.  Jiad  been  then  existing  in  their  root. 


Hi 


APPENDIX. 


67 


"From  wliicli  it.  will  fullow,  (luil  lioih  guilt,  or  cx- 
posednoss  lo  |uiriisliiiieMl,;uRl  .ilso  (Ifpr.iviiy  oflieart, 
caine  U(joii  Ail.un's  i)o.<leriiy  jiiL-t  us  they  Ciiine  upon 
him,  as  much  as  iflie  and  ihey  liailall  cu-cxisu'd,  likt; 
a  tree  wilh  many  branches  ;  allowiujr  only  lor  the  dil- 
ferencc  necessarily  resultin;;  I'roiu  ihe  ])lacc  Adam 
stood  HI  as  the  iiead  and  root  ol'  llie  whole.  Other- 
wise, it  is  as  if,  in  every  step  ol  proceeding,  every  al- 
teration in  the  root  had  been  attended  in  tlie  s-ame 
instant  with  the  same  alteration  throujiliouf.  tiie  whole 
tree,  in  each  indiviilual  branch.  1  tliiidi  this  will  nat- 
urally follow  on  the  supposition  ol'  a  constituted  one-  , 
■ness  or  identilij  ol'  Adam  and  iiis  i)oslerity  in  the 
art'air."     pp.  542,  5-13. 

"From  what  has  been  observed  it  may  appear  that 
there  is  no  sure  ground  to  conc'udi',  that  it  must  be 
an  absurd  and  impossible  thing  for  the  race  of  man- 
kind truly  to  partake  of  the  sin  of  the  fir^^t  aposlacy, 
so  as  that  this,  in  lealitij  and.  pruprialy,  .shall  become 
their  sin;  by  virtue  ol  a  rued  union  between  the  root 
and  branches  of  mankind,  [truly  and  properly  availing_ 
to  such  a  consequence,]  established  by  the  Author  ol" 
the  whole  .system  of  the  universe;  to  whose  cstab- 
I'ishuienrs  are  owing  all  propriety  and  reality  of  urnon, 
in  any  part  of  the  system;  anl  Ity  virtue  of  the  full 
consent  of  the  hearts  of  Adam's  posterity  to  this  apos- 
tacy.  And  therefore  the  sin  of  the  aijostacy  is  not 
theirs  merely  because  God  imputes  it  to  them. ;  bct  it 

IS   TRULY    AND     PROPERLY    THEIRS,  UUd  OH   thai  grOUUd 

God  imputes  it  to  t/iem.y  p.  559. 

And  in  support  of  this  doctrine  of  constituted  one- 
ness or  identity,  Edwards  enters  into  a  protracted 
metaphysical  argument  to  pi  ovc  that  a//  identity  is 
constituted  in  the  same  w:-iy  by  the  arrangement  of 
God;  and  that  personal  idfiitity,  and  so  the  deriva- 
tion of  the  pollution  and  guilt  of  past  sins  in  the  sfime 
persrm,  dej)ends  o«  an  arbitrary  divine  constitution 
(pp.  549—557) ;  and  therelore  that  God  may  "  estab- 
lish a  constitution  whereby  the  natural  posterity  of 
Adam,  proceeding  from  him,  much  as  the  buds  and 
branches  from  the  stock  or  root  oi"  a  tree  should  be 
treated  as  one  with  him,-'  &c.  p.  557.  The  csacntial 
i-lea  in  the  theory  of  Edwards  is,  that  there  is  a  cor- 
sticuted  oneness  or  identity  between  Adam  and  his 
pisterity,  constituted  in  the  same  way  as  personal 
identity  is  every  where;  and  that  his  sin  is  truly  ai.d 
properly  thei/s,  and  is  therefore  charged  on  tliem  ; 
aid  that  this  sin  so  charged  on  them  is  distinct  from 
t  leir  original  corruption  and  depravity.  This  he  ex 
pressly  states  on  p.  543. 

That  the  same  was  the  doctrine  of  Stapfer,  an 
eminent  divine  of  Zurich,  in  Switzerland,  is  proved 
a'jundantly  by  Edwards'  VVorks,  vol.  ii.  p.  545:  "  Sec- 


68  APPENDIX. 

ing  all  Adam's  posterity  are  derived  from  their  first 
parent  as  their  rooi,  the  whole  of  the  huoian  kind  with 
its  root,  may  be  considered  as  constituting  but  one 
whole  or  tnass,"  &c.  "  Seeing,  therefore,  that  Adam 
with  all  his  posterity  constituted  but  one  moral  per- 
son, and  are  united  in  the  same  covenant,  and  are 
trans^rressors  in  the  same  lavv^  they  are  also  to  be 
looked  upon  as  having  in  a  moral  estimation,  commit- 
ted the  same  transgressions  of  the  law  both  in  number 
and  in  kind." 

f.   Thus  Calvin  says  [Comm.  on  Rom.  v.  17]  that  "  by 
the  sin  of  Adam  we  are  condemned,  not  by  imputa- 
tion alone,  as  il'the  punishment  due  to  another's  guilt 
were  exacted  from  us,  but  we  endure  iiis  punishment 
because  we  are    chargeable    with    his   criminality, 
since  our  nature  being  vitiated  in  him  is  chargeable 
with  the  criminality  ol  iniquity — ';  non  per  solam  im- 
putalionem  damnamur,  acsi  alieni  peccati  exigereiur 
a  nobis  poena ;  sed  ideo  poenam  ejus  sustintmus 
auiA  ET  ciiLPAE  suiMiTS  REi.  Tiic  same  doctrine  Calvin 
teaches  in  his  Institutes  B.  11,  ch.  1.  38.     "And  this 
liableness  to  punishment,"  says  he,  "  arises  not  from 
the  delinquency  of  another,  neque  est  alieni  delicti — 
for  when  it  is  said  that  the  sin  of  Adam  renders  us 
obnoxious  to  the  divine  judgment,  it  is  not  to  be  un- 
i^  derstood  as  if  we,  iliough  innocent,  were  undeserved- 
':ly  loaded  with  ilie  guilt  nl  his  sin.  \VhereJbre  Augus- 
tine, though  he  IrKiueniJy  calls  it  the  sin  ol"  another, 
the  more  careluily  to  indicate  its  transmission  to  us 
by  propagation,  >e1  at  the  same  time  he  also  asserts 
:  it  properly  to  belong  to  each  individual,  proprium 
\7inicnigue."   "And  therefore,"  he  continues,  "infants 
^themselves,  as  they  bring  their  condemnation  into 
Jthe  world  \sith  them,  are  rendered  obnoxiuus  to  pun- 
J  ishment  by  their  own  sinfuhiess,  nut  by  the  siiifulness 
l^of  another  y    Idem. 

Stapler,  also  lays  down  the  doctrine  of  original  sin 

iin  the  same  manner.  "  God,  in  imputing  this  sin, 
finds  the  whole  moral  person  (the  human  race)  al- 
ready a  sinner,  and  not  merely  constituted  as  such." 
Polem.  Theo.  ch.  xvi.  63. 
\  Boston  [Body  of  Divinity,  vol.  1,  p.  308,]  says, — 
"Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  us  because  it  is  ours. 
For  God  doth  not  reckon  a  thing  to  be  ours  which  is 
not  so  ;  for  God's  justice  doih  not  punish  men  lor  a 
Bin  which  is  in  no  wuy  theirs.  As,  ii  a  person  that  has 
the  plirigue  infect  others,  they  die  by  their  own  plague 
and  not  by  that  of  another." 

•'  Turretin  held  the  same  doctrine— that  we  are  con- 
idemncdfor  his  sin  because  it  is  properly  07<r5,  and 
(because  we  are  ill-deserving.  Thus,  speaking  of  all 
las  dying  in  Adam,  he  says,  "They  have  sinned  in 
him,  and  are  bound  with  him  (communi  culpa)  in  a 


APPENDIX.  69 

/  common  criminality,  for  no  one  cnn  deserve  (mcreri) 
/  death,  iinlcRs  lio  has  wilk  him  (^Adam)  and  in  liini  a 
]  common  sin,  which  is  tiiecause  ol'tleatli.  So  that  we 
(are  said  to  siii  in  him,  not  merely  in  tiie  way  of  effi- 
jciency,  as  the  cause  by  wliicii  win  is  propagated,  but 
'  as  in  tiie  way  [dtMiieritil  ol  ill-oksiout."  'riicol.  p. 
633.  Aj^ain.  "  Justice,"  says  Turretin,  "does  not 
Hnflict  p?<??/.s7)?»-e??^  except  upon  him  who  deseriit:s  lix 
I  [mereiitij  lor  in  the  iaiputalion  of  Adam's  sin,  the  jus- 
Slice  oTGoil  does  not  iallict  pvniisl)!nent  uiion  liim  thai 
/does  not  deserve  it,  [imrnerentij  but  upon  him  that 
\  UOES  DESERVK  IT  [mcrentij.     P.  687. 

The   sentinients  oi"  these  men,  who  were  surely 
competent  to  state  what  old  Calvinism   was,  cannot 
be  mistaken.     Their  doctrine  was,  that  men  are  con- 
denmed  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  not  as  charged  or  impu- 
ted to  them  heiniT  innocent,  but  as  being  a  sin  truly 
f  and  properly  theirs.    Tiiere  was  a  oneness  constitu- 
l   ted  between  them  and  Adam  ;  and  they  were  reckon- 
1  ed  as  havingsinned  in  hi(n,andasbcing  ill-deseuving 
Vor  criminal  ihv  the  oH'cnce. 

Believing  this  to  he  the  form  of  the  Calviiii.^m  cf  the 
older  schools ;  regarding  these  men  as  competent  to 
explain  what  they  meant,  it  was  my  intention  to  ex- 
press my  dissent  from  it;  and  I  wish  now  lo  be  under- 
stood as  so  doing.  Without  entering  at  large  into  the 
reasons  to/j.?/l  did  this,  1  may  slate  in  general  that  I  did 
it  because  i.  I  did  not  find  it  in  the  passages  on  which 
I  was  commenting,  nor  elsewhere  in  th.e  IJibie.  2.  I 
regarded  it,  notwithstanding  tlie  ingenious  reasoning 
of  Edwards,  whose  opinion  I  do  not  readily  or  wil- 
lingly dissent  from,  on  any  subject,  as  a  violation  of 
the  principles  of  common  sense,  and  at  war  witli  the 
common  apprehensions  of  men.  All  cur  notions  of /V/e?2- 
tity  are  confounded  by  it,  and  all  our  views  of  justice 
destroyed.  If  an  identity  can  he  "  aibitrarily"  consti- 
tuted between  Adam  and  liis  posterity,  it  may  be  be- 
tween any  two  or  more  individuals  of  that  race,  and 
justice  would  be  co;. (bunded  and  perverted  forever. 
It  would  be  iaipossible  to  have  any  clear  and  deter- 
minate notions  of  moral  agency,  of  law,  of  the  use  of 
conscience  or  consciousness;  would  confound  all  our 
conceptions  of  justice,  and  all  ideas  ol  distinct  per- 
sonality, and  throw  society  into  a  common  mass, 
where  an  arbitrary  being  might  cause  iiis  judgments 
to  descend  on  any  individuals  on  w^hom  he  might 
choose  to  charge  Uie  crime,  and  over  wliom  he  migiit 
choose  to  distribute  criminality.  Every  man  feels 
that  identity  cannot  be  thus  constituted;  and  to  at- 
tempt to  make  laws,  und^-r  such  a  system  of  things, 
would  be  a  burlesque  on  legislation.  3.  I  suppposed 
that  the  doctrine  was  abandoned  by  the  great  mass 
of  ministers  and  members  ol  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  was  held  by  i'cw  in  these  times.    And  4.  I  found 


70  APPENDIX. 

thai  it  was  exprcsdy  abandoned  and  disclaimed  by 
those  wliom  I  had  been  accustomed  to  regard  as  my 
insiriicior8  in  the  doctrines  of  rehgion.  Thus  the 
Bihlical  Jiepeilory  expressly  disclaims  it.  [Vol.  ii,  p. 
90.]  Spealfinff  of  Adam's  sin,  it  is  said  that  "  his  vo- 
Iniitary  act  may  be  reckoned  that  ot  his  descendanls 
not  iiuleed  strictly  and  properly,  [for  those  not  born 
could  not  perl'orm  an  act."  And  again,  vol.  ii,  p.  436 
— "  VVe  deny  iliai  his  act  was  properly  and  personal- 
ly our  act ;  and  ihat  the  mural  turpitude  o\  that  sin 
was  iraiislerred  to  us."  The  doctrine  here  is,  that 
men  are  not  blame-worthy  or  ill-deserving  on  ac- 
count of  the  sin  of  Adam.  5.  The  condu:5tors  of  the 
Biblical  Repertory  inform  us  that  this  is  the  preva- 
lent and  uniform  doctrine  of  "  old  Calvinists  of  difl'er- 
ent  denominations"  in  this  country.  And  again,  [vol. 
ii,  p.  448,]  they  say,  "  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation 

'of  Adam's  sin  includes  neither  the  idea  of  any  myste- 
rious union  of  the  human  race  with  him,  so  that  his 
sin  is  strictly  and  properly  theirs,  nor  that  of  a  trans- 
fer of  moral  character."  And  in  vol.  ii,  p.  CI,  they 
s  ly  that  "  personal  acts  cannot  be  transferred;"  and 
that  "  the  ill-desert  of  one  man  cannot  be  transferred 
to  another  ;"  which  is  saying,  in  almost  so  many 
words,  that  we  cannot  be  regarded  as  ill-deserving 

■  or  criminal,  for  the  sin  of  Adam — the  very  doctrine 
which  I  designed  to  teach.  See  also  Bib.  Rep.  iii, 
p.  4fO.  6.  The  same  thing  is  stated,  and  the  same 
doctrine  of  the  older  Calvinists  rejected,  in  a  Tract 
on  Presbyterianism  by  Ur.  Miller,  published  by  the 
"  Doctrinal  Tract  Society  of  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia," pp.  36,  37, 

-  The  second  theory  on  the  subject  of  imputatien  i.^ 
the  following  ;  and  is  supposed  to  be  a  very  prevalent 
opinion  in  the  Presbyterian  church-  It  consists  in  the 
doctrine  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  not  reckoned  or  im- 
puted to  his  posterity  as  truly  and  properly  theirs, 
as  tlial  for  which  they  are  blame-worthy  or  ill-deserv- 

'  ing,  but  is  theirs  simply  by  imputation,  or  putatively; 
that  a  sin  is  reckoned  to  them,  or  charged  on  them, 
which  they  never  committed,  and  that  they  are  sub- 
jected to  punishment  for  that  sin  without  being  per- 
sonally or  really  to  blame.  A  part  of  this  punishment 
is  said  to  consist  in  tke  sin  itself  with  which  man 
comes  inio  the  world,  and  a  part  in  the  penal  suffer- 
ings to  which  he  is  subjected  in  this  life  and  the  world 
to  come,  and  which  are  in  all  respects  the  same  as  if 
the  infant  had  himself  committed  the  sin,  Thi.^  is  said 
to  be  by  a  sovereign  arrangement  of  God  appointinff 
Adam  to  be  in  all  respects  the  representative  of  hia 
posterity.  This  statement  is  that  which  is  made  in 
the  Biblical  Repertory,  vol.  ii,  p.  90— "his  (Adam's) 
voluntary  act  may  be  reckoned  that  of  his  descend' 
ants,  not  indeed  striclly  and  properly,  ^for  those  not 


APPENDIX.  7l 

yet  born  could  not  perform  an  act,]  but  impuatively, 
or  by  imputation  ;  for  this  act  was  not  only  imj)uled 
to  Adam,  but  to  ail  his  posterity."  Again.  "  To  im- 
pute a  sin,  is  to  liold  the  person  bound  to  sufier  pun- 
ishment." Idem.  Again,  p.  91,  "  Although  the  ii.l- 
DESERT  of  one  man  cannot  be  translrrred  to  another, 
thepunishmentdue  to  one  can  beinllii  ted  on  anotiicr." 
Again,  vol.  iii,  p.  410,  "  Hereditary  d'?pravity  lollows 
as  a  jional  evil  i'rom  Adam's  sin,  and  is  not  the  ground 
ol  its  imputation  to  men."  So  Dr.  JVliller,  p.  36,  as 
referred  to  above.  It  would  be  easy  to  go  on  to  al- 
most any  length  in  making  (luotalions  to  show  that 
this  is  now  the  current  doctrine  in  the  Presbyterian 
church. 
In  regard  to  this  doctrine  I  may  observe  : 

1.  That  it  is  an  abandonment  of  the  ground  of  the 
older  Calvinists.  It  is  expressly  stated  that  they  do 
not  regard  the  race  as  Edwards,  Satpfer,  &c.  did,  as  • 
one  with  Adam,  by  a  personal  identity  constituted  by 
God  ;  it  is  affirmed  that  his  sin  is  not  truly  and  pro- 
perly ouic  ,  that  the  illdeserl  of  that  sin  is  not  trans- 
ferred to  us  ;  that  we  are  not  really  anJ  properly 
criminal  for  it.  Now,  this  is  an  evident  and  open  de- 
parture from  the  doctrines  of  the  older  Calvinists  on 
the  subject,  who  held,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  sin 
IS  truly  and  properly  ours,  and  that  God  reckons  it 
to  us  because  it  properly  belongs  to  us  as  our  own. 
Turretin  says,  "  The  ill-desert  of  Adam  is  transler- 
re:l  to  his  pissterity."  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  iii.  p.  436.  This 
theory  says  it  is  not. 

2.  This  theory  appears  at  least  to  be  a  departure 
from  the  Conlession  of  Faith.  The  language  of  the 
standards  of  our  church  was  evidently  derived  from 
the  theory  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  truly  and  pro- 
perly ours.  Thus  it  says,  "All  mankind  sinned  in 
him,  and  fell  with  him." 

3.  It  employs  the  word  impute  in  an  unscriptural 
sense.  la  the  iiible  the  word  denotes  to  reckon,  to 
charge  on,  to  impute  according  to  truth,  not  accord- 
ing to  falsehood.  God's  reckonings  are  according  to 
truth,  and  not  according  to  error;  and  when  God 
reckons  a  creature  to  have  committed  an  act  it  is  only 
where  the  act  has  in  fact  been  committed  ;  Avhere  he 
imputes  sin  to  man  it  is  only  where  sin  exists.  He  in- 
deed reckons  man  to  be  so  connected  with  Adam  as 
to  be  involved  in  the  consequences  of  his  sin  ;  but  this 
is  to  reckon  things  as  tkey  are,  and  not  as  they  are 
not.  In  the  theory  which  we  are  now  considering, 
man  is  reckoned  as  having  committed  a  sin  which,  in 
the  same  breath,  we  are  told^  he  never  committed  j 
he  is  charged  with  a  crime,  lor  which,  in  the  same 
breath,  we  are  told  he  is  not  to  blame;  he  is  punished 
and  reckoned  fit  to  be  punished,  for  an  otlence  in  which, 


72  AtTENDli. 

at  the  same  momont  we  are  told  he  had  no  agency. 
Now,  whatever  other  objections  may  lie  nsainst  this 
theory,  and  whaLevcr  may  be  said  in  its  favor,  one 
thins  is  certain,  it  i;?  a  dc])artare  from  the  scripiure 
meaning  of  the  word  iminitc.  In  all  cases,  the  He- 
brew liashab  and  the  Gieek  logizomai  mean  to  rec- 
kon, and  esteem,  and  impute  tilings  as  tiny  me,  and 
notaccordLng  to  falsehood,  not  toset  over,  or  to  charge 
on  a  man  what  does  not  belong  to  him.  Tliis  will  be 
seen  to  be  tlie  sense  of  tlie  word  by  examining  the 
places  where  it  occurs.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the 
word  hashab  rendered  by  the  word  logizomai  occurs 
only  in  the  following  niacps :  1  Sam.  xviii.  25;  Est. 
viii.  3  ;  i.K.  24,  25;  Isa.  liii.  3,  4 ;  xxxiii.  8 ;  Jer.  xlix.20 ; 
1.  45;  Lam.  ii.  V,;z  Sam.  xiv.  13,  14;  Jer.  xlix.  30: 
Gen.  1.20:  Job  xxxv.  2;  Eze.  xxxviii.  JO;  Jer.  xviii. 
8;  Psa.  X.  2;  xxi.  12;cxli.  3,5;  Jer.  /i.  19;  xlviii.  2; 
Amos  vi.  5  ;  Jer.  xxvi.  3;  Micah  ii.  3;  Neh.  i.  11 ;  Jer. 
xviii.  11 ;  Job  xiii.  34;  xli.  19,  24  ;  Ps.  xxxii.  2;  xxxv. 
5;  lea.  x.  7;  Job  xix.  11:  xxxiii.  10;  Gen.  xvi.  6; 
xxxviii.  15 ;  1  Sam.  i.  13  ;  Ps.  lii.  4  ;  Jer.  xviii.  8 ;  Zcch. 
vii.  10;  Job  vi.  40;  xix.  16;  Isa.  xiii.  17;  1  Kings  x. 
21  :  Num.  xviii.  27,  30;  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  4;  lea.  xl.  17: 
Lum.  iv.  2;  Isa.  xl.  15;  Gen.  xxxii.  6.  The  vyora 
properly  means  to  thhik,  inleml,  or  purpose  j  to  ima- 
f^ine,  invent,  or  devise ;  to  reckon  or  acconnt  j  to  esr 
teem  or  impute  what  belongs  to  one,  or  to  reckon  it 
as  belonging  ;o  him.  By  examining  all  these  pa.=;sa- 
ges,  it  will  be  found  that  whenever  it  is  applied  to 
God  it  always  denotes  to  reckon,  or*estecm,or  impute 
things  just  as  Tney  ahe,  and  not  falsely,  or  as  they 
are  not.  Applied  to  God  it  never  means  that  he 
charges  on  man  that  which  does  not  belong  to  him,  or 
that  Which  ovs^ht  not  to  be  charged  to  him.  The 
word  occurs  about  forty  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  always  in  a  similar  .sense.  A  singl }  illustration 
Irom  a  well-known  and  olten-quolcd  passage,  may 
express  the  sense  of  this  word  in  the  Scriptures.  In 
the  epistle  to  Philemon,  ver.  18,  Paul  says  of  Onesi- 
mus,  "If  he  hath  wronged  thee,  or  oweth  thee  aught, 
put  that  on  mine  account" — touto  emoi  ellogai — im- 
pute it,  or  reckon  it  to  me.  This  passage  is  often  ad- 
duced as  teaching  that  that  was  to  be  reckoned  to  a 
man  which  did  not  belong  to  him  ;  that  the  word  im- 
pute may  denote  to  charge  that  on  a  man  which  i.s 
not  his  own;  and  that  therefore,  as  this  was  done  in 
this  case,  it  might  be  proper  for  God  to  do  this  on 
those  who  are  personalty  innocent.  The  argument  is, 
that  if  it  might  be  done  in  charging  on  Paul  a  wrong, 
or  debt,  which  was  not  his  own,  then  it  might  be  done 
by  an  arbitrary  arrangement  on  the  personally  inno- 
cent posterity  of  Adam.  But  the  lallaciousness  of 
this  reasoning  may  be  seen  from  two  considerations. 


APPENDIX.  73 

1.  Paul  ASSUMED  LliG  wFoiiff  and  the  debt  before  it  / 
was  to  be  (;h;irfiO(l  on  liiin,  or  iinijutfd  to  him.  This 
internietHaic  slop  of  (iNsiDiip/ion  is  a  very  material 
one,  and  cluiiiges  the  whole  lace  oi  the  allair.  When  . 
a  man  assumes  a  debt  and  promises  to  pay  it,  it  be- 
comes A /.s"  own  debt;  it  is  due  from  firm;  he  binds 
himseh'to  pay  it ;  and  tliouj^h  the  debt  was  not  con- 
tracted by  iiiin  at  first,  yet  it  is  his  by  assumption,  and 
ihc  law  therefore  liolds  iiiin  bound  to  pay  it.  So  in 
Iho  case  ol"  tlie  "  wronj^"  wliich  liad  been  done  by 
Onesimus.  It  was  not  true  that  Paul  had  committed 
it:  but  he  assumed  ihii  consequences  and  undertook 
to  make  them  ijood.  The  reckoning  or  imputation  in 
this  case,  was  therefore  strictly  in  accordance  with 
the  truth,  Paul  assumed  a  debt  or  a  wrong  which  he 
had  not  done  personnliy,  and  it  was  to  be  reckoned  to 
him  as  assumed;  that  is,  ju.st  as  it  was.  and  not 
falsely.  So  if  man  assumes  the  crime  of  Adam,  or 
assents  to  it,  it  may  be  reckoned  to  him  just  as  it  is — 
that  is  as  assumed  or  assented  ro.  The  propriety  of 
this  view  is  apparent  from  another  consideration.  2. 
Suppose  this  wrong  or  debt  had  been  charged  on  Paul 
by  iMiilemon  icithout  Paul's  iiaving  assumed  it.  Sup- 
pose that  by  an  "arbitrary"  arrangement  he  fiad 
held  him  answerable  lor  the  debt,  and  had  prosecu- 
ted him  for  if.  Is  there  any  doubt  how  a  court  or 
jury  would  decide  the  case  ?  Would  there  not  be  de- 
manded evidence  t!;at  the  debt  was  for  a  valuable 
consideration  rendered  to  him,  or  had  been  assumed 
by  liim,  ami  that  he  liad  bound  himself  to  pay  it?  No 
two  juries  that  could  be  enipannelled  on  the  lace  of 
the  earth  would  decide  dilfereiitly  on  the  case.  Or 
suppose  that  the  "  wrong"  winch  Onesimus  had  done 
to  Philemon  had  been  slander,  or  the  seduction  of  his 
wile,  and  that  Piiilemoa  had  chursed  or  imputed  the 
offence  to  Paul  without  any  expression  of  his  assu- 
ming it.  Suppose  that  Philemon  had  held  Paul  an- 
swerable for  the  ollence.  and  had  published  him  as  a 
slanderer  or  seducer.  Could  there  be  any  ditl'erence 
of  opinion  among  men  as  to  this  course?  Woidd  it 
be  possible  to  ibrm  two  judgments  in  regard  to  it? 
And  would  not  the  wH^rld  look  wilhabliorrenceonthe 
charge?  The  simple  truth  then  is,  that  things  were 
reckoned  just  as  they  were,  and  that  the  word  reckon, 
or  impure,  here  means  this,  and  this  only.  The  of- 
fence was  committed,  not  by  Paul,  [)ut  by  Onesimus. 
Paul  assumed  it,  and  it  was  reckoned  J^/.s^  as  it  was, 
AS  ASSU.MED.  A ud  SO  in  regard  to  all  the  arrange- 
ments of  the  divine  government. 

4.  It  is  a  violation  in  almost  express  terms  of  the 
principles  of  the  divine  government,  as  laid  down  in 
the  Bible.  Ezek.  xviii.  2.  3,  4,  19,  20:  "  What  mean 
ye  that  ye  use  this  proverb  concerning  the  land  of 
Israel,  saying,  the  fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes, 
7 


74  APPENDIX. 

and  the  children's  teeth  are  sei  on  edge  ?"  That  is, 
'  Why  do  you  charge  tliis  ap  a  principle  of  the  divine 
administration,  thai  tiie  children  are  punished  lor  the 
sins  of  their  parents?'  That  this  is  the  sense  is  evi- 
dent, and  to  re|)ly  to  this  accusation,  i.  e.  to  deny  it, 
is  the  object  of  tite  cliapter.  "  As  I  live,  eaith  the 
Lord  God,  ye  shall  not  Jiiive  occasion  any  more  to  use 
this  proverb  in  Israel.  Behold  all  souls  are  mine  :  as 
the  soul  ol  the  lather,  so  ylso  the  soul  of  the  son  is 
mine ;  the  soul  thai  sinnelh,  it  s/uill  die  ;"  that  is,  he 
shall  not  die,  or  be  puniehed  lor  the  sin  of  his  father, 
but  because  he  is  personally  a  dinner.  He  shall  not 
be  held  to  be  blameworthy,  or  be  punisiied  for  the  sin 
of  another,  but  because  he  is  hinisclf  a  transgressor, 
and  deserves  to  die.  "  Yet  ye  s<iy.  Why?  Doth  not 
the  son  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father?'"  This  is  the 
objection  of  the  dissatisfied  Jew;  charging  the  go- 
vernment of  God  with  injustice,  end  cruelty;  a7id 
that  charge  is,  that  the  son  bearc'  the  iniquity,  or  is 
f  -punished  for  the  sin  of  his  falser.  To  this  God  re- 
S  plies:  "The  soul  that  sinnelh  it  shall  die.     The  son 

\    SHALL  NOT  BEAR  THE  INIQUITY  OF  HIS  FATHER  ;   NEITHER 
/    SHALL  THE    FATHER    BEAR    THE    INKiUIlY    OF    THE    SON. 

This  is  the  great,  and  just,  and  glorious  principle  of 
the  divine  administration  ;  a  principle  stated  express- 
ly in  opposition  to  the  charge  tliat  the  innocent  are 
punished  for  the  crimes  of  the  guilty;  and  designed 
forever  to  free  the  divine  goveririncni  from  that  ac- 
cusation. It  would  be  impossible  in  stronger  language 
to  state  the  principle.  The  same  prio'^^iple  is  stated 
in  Deut.  xxiv,  16:  "  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to 
death  for  the  children,  neither  shall  the  children  be 
put  to  death  for  the  fathers  ;  every  man  shall  be  put 
to  death  for  his  own  siny  Comp.  li.  Kings  xiv.  5,  6; 
Eze-xxxiii.  10,  11,  12. 

5.  It  is  an  abandonment  of  the  old  system,  which 
system  was  at  least  consistent  in  its  use  of  language. 
This  theory  has  retained  tin.-,  fragments  of  a  system, 
and  its  language,  but  without  retaining  the  at  least 
CONSISTENT  theory  cf  the  scholuotic  theology  in  which 
it  was  founded.  When  the  old  divines  used  the  word 
impute,  they  understood  its  Scrii)iure  sense,  and  its 
common  usage,  as  denoting  charging  on  a  vian  that 
which  properly  belonged,  io  hivi.  Hence  they  invent- 
ed the  theory  ol'  the  strict  and  piOjjer  oneness,  or 
identity  with  Adam,  and  said  that  hit;  sin  is  truly  antl 
properly  our-i,  and  therefors  is  charged  on  us.  There 
the  theory  was  consistent,  and  i,ne  language  Scrip- 
tural— whatever  may  be  said  of  the  theory.  When 
they  talked  ol  guilt,  they  meant  obligation  to  punish- 
ment, not  obligation  to  sitjcri'ig — aiid  to  punishment 
for  sins  deserved  by  the  fact  liiat  the  sin  of  Adam  is 
truly  and  properly  ours.  Wiien  they  spoke  of  pun- 
ishment, they  used  the  v/ord  in  its  common  significa- 


At»PENDlX.  T5 

tion  as  denoting  a  just  sufleririff  of  penal  evils  for  sin 
of  which  they  were  justly  charged  because  it  was 
their  own. 
But  in  the  theory  now  under  consideration,  we 
/have  \:\\&  fr<is;menl!i  only  of  a  system  ;  we  have  words 
(  dissevered  from   their  proper  eigndicalion  ;  and   doc- 
)  trines,  the  absurdity  of  which  were  seen  as  clearly  by 
\  the  older  divines  aa  they  can  be  now.     We  hear   in 
this  system  of  God's  imputing  to  men  sins  which  in 
no  proper  sense  bclon^'j  to  thorn — thus  departinj;'  whol- 
ly from  the  Ki'.ripture  use   of  language  ;  we  hear  of 
God's  pwiishiiiff  them   i'or  sin   when  the   sin  is  not 
strictly  their  own,  and  when  they  are  not"  ill-deserv- 
ing;" we  hear  of  their  being  bound  to  punishment, 
'  or  guilty,   when  they  are  not   "  blamewortliy :"  we 
hear  ot  representation  in  a  sense  contrary   to   that 
which  is  u^cd  in  the  language  of  men,  and  in  all  the 
doctrines  of  agencies,   without  the  consent  or  know- 
ledge of  these  represented ;  and  all  this  by  an  arbi- 
trary arrangciueat  of  God,  unlike  any  th'ng   which 
actually  occurs  elsewhere  on  earth.    Now  whatever 
may  be  the  defecis  of  tiie  old  system,  it  has  manifest- 
ly many  ad\"antages  over  this.    It  has  the  merit  of 
coiiffistency.  It  retains  the  Scripture  use  of  language. 
It  uses  words  a-?  they  are   employed  in  common  life. 
So  the  profound  mind  of  Edwards  saw  ;  and  greatly 
Hs  /dislike  that  system,  it  lias  so  many  consistoicies 
over  that;  now  under  notice,  that  I  should  greatly  pre- 
fer it  to  thfit  which  in  our  tin»o  hao  (nuppliinted  it. 

6.  The  ttieory  is  liaiile  to  a  sixth  objection,  that  it 
makes  sin  hothjcause  and  eli'ect.  It  teaches  that  the  sm 

i^  «ii?e//,  with  \\fliich  men  are  born  is  a  punishment  (or 
Adam's  sin.     The  piuMshrnent  according  to  one  view 
^  is  before  the  Time — that  is,  it  is  before  ill-desert,  or 
'criminality;  \:f   anotiie.!-,  it  is  regarded  as  an  effect, 
,  whose  cause  »  ul  no  existence.    Men  are  punished  by 
■  sm,for  a  sin  a  hich  they  did  not  commit,  and  whichis 
in  no  sense  .strictly  theirs.   But  how  can  justice  make 
'  punishmeni  precede  transgression  or  ill  desert?  How 
Scan  it  be  right  to  create  sin  in  the  soul  as  a  punisk- 
Unent  for  the  sin  of  another  ?  How  can  we  conceive  a 
■  higher  absurdity,  than  that  the  holy  God  should  cre- 
ate sin  in  the  heart  of  innocence,  as  a  punishment  lor 
the  crime  of  another,  charged  or  imputed  arbitrarily 
on  the  soul  j  ersonaliy  innocent,  or  not  personally  ill- 
deserving  1 

7.  The  theory  explains  nothing.  It  throws  no  light 
on  a  very  dark  and  abstruse  subject.  It  greatly  en- 
cumbers the  plain  and  acknowledged  facts  in  the  case 
by  all  the  additional  embarrassment  of  a  theory  which 
is  at  variance  with  the  Scripture  ;  with  the  common 
use  of  language,  and  the  common  sense  of  men.  It 
is  far  less  dilKcult  to  admit  the  simple  lucfs  in  the 
case,  with  ail  their  dithculties,  than  it  is  with  the  ad- 


76  AVPKNnix. 

dition  of  a  theory  tliut  is  more  embarrassing  th«n 
the  fUols  themselves,  and  th.it.  explains  nothing.  For 
tho  question,  on  each  aiiplicalioii  ol  this  theory  of  im- 
putation to  explain  the  lUcis,  ini^i.intiy  arise?,  "  How 
can  the  theory  itsell"  be  vimiioated  ?  How  can  it  be 
just  in  God  to  charge  that  on  men  which  they  never 
committed,  and  to  hold  them  responsible  for,  and  to 
punish  then'  for,  an  act  in  which  they  have  incurred 
no  ill-dcseri  ?  And  how  does  this  additional  flilR- 
culty  release  us  from  embarrassment  in  regard  to  the 
fact  ?" 

8.  It  is  mere  theory.  The  doctrine,  it  is  believed, 
is  not  to  be  Ibund  in  the  Scriptures.  We  may  sal'ely 
leave  it  to  th«  common  s-cnse  of  the  wliole  worldv 
Not  a  man,  it  is  pre.«umed,  can  find  the  i.lementsof 
this  theory  in  the  Bible.  The  theory,  wiihout  cari- 
cature, is,  that  a  sin  is  imputed  to  us,  or  charged  on 
us,  which  is  not  strictly  and  properly  ours.  That 
this  is  in  virtue,  if  a  rcpvesentaliun  in  Adam,  who 
acted  for  us,  without  onr  knowledge  and  consent. 
That  we  are  held  ffuiilij  for  a  sin  which  in  no  sense 
we  committed,  without  being  chargeable  at  all  with 
ill-desert.  That  we  are  punisliad  ibr  a  crime  which 
we  did  not  commit;  and.  vv-hich  is  admitted  to  be  iu 
no  proper  sense  our  own.  That  the  punishment  con- 
sists in  part  in  sin  itseU  with  v/hich  v;e  arc  born,  and 
existing  previous  to  moral  agency.  And  yet  that, 
for  this  sin,  we  are  not  bound  to  exercise  repentance, 

and    for    it   wc  cannot  ropont.      (£310.  Rep.  VOl.  jl.  460.)'. 

As  an  instance  of  the  f/Tet^  of  this  doctrine  in  per- 
plexing and  troubling  itie  minds  of  men,  1  beg  leave 
to  read  the  passiige,  as  well  as  to  show  that  while  it 
is  held  that  men  are  punished,  they  are  punished  in 
such  circumstances  that  they  neither  ca?!,  nor  are 
expected  to  be  sornj  for  that  on  account  of  whicl> 
they  are  punished.  "'  We  have  been  frepuently  ask- 
ed by  young  men,  if  we  have  ever  repented  ol  Adam's 
sin,  and  have  uniforinly,  to  their  obvious  discomfit, 
answered  in  the  negative.  Knowing  the  sense  in 
which  the  question  was  i)ut,  it  would  have  confirmed- 
heir  misconceptions,  to  have  answered  otherwise. 
We  have  never  so  appropri;^ted  that  sin  as  to  recog- 
nise it  as  properly  ann  personally  our  own,  or  as  tho 
ground  ot  personal  i  ei^aorsc.  Wc  have  always  con- 
sidered this  question  as  unreasonable  as  it  would  be 
to  ask  us,  if  we  ever  felt  sell  approbation  and  compla- 
cency for  llie  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ." 

9.  It  is  a  doctrine  vvl'.ich  will,  if  preached,  greatly 
embarrass  a  man's  mirustry  ;  produce  ease  in  sin  j 
hinder  the  progress  of  the  gospel  ;  and  disgast  raer» 
of  common  understfindinir  vvih  cJiristianity.  Let  a 
minister  proclaim  that  his  hearers  are  one  with 
Adam,  and  then  common  sense  will  revolt  at  it.  Lej 
them  be  told  that  they  are  personally  ill-deservitv^ 


APPENDIX.  77 

for  his  conduct,  committed  six  ihousand  years  before 
they  were  born,  and  that  they  acted  then,  and  the 
infidel  will  eniih*.  Let  them  be  told  that  God  char- 
ges on  them  a  sin  wiiicli  they  did  not  commit,  and 
they  will  say  that  his  diarges  are  confessedly  not  ac- 
cording totrutii,and  that  it  is  absurd  ihattliey  should 
be  held  answerable  lor  a  crime  which  they  know  they 
did  not  conmiiL,  and  lor  wliich  they  are  told  in  the 
same  bre;>.tli,  ihey  oiii^ht  not  to  repent.  No  man 
would  preach  this  in  a  revival  ol'  religion  ;  no  one  to 
an  anxious  sinner,  when  he  should  ask  what  he  must 
do  to  be  saved.  Our  Savior  never  taught  it  to  his 
disciples;  nor  did  Peter,  or  Paul,  proclaim  it,  when 
men  trembled  under  the  consciousness  of  their  own 
crimes,  and  when  they  asked  what  they  must  do  to 
be  saved. 

1  add,  (10.)  That  the  doctrine,  as  so  stated,  has 
been  long  abandoned  by  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
most  abl'i,  pious,  and  useful  ministers  in  this  country. 
It  is  vvel!  known  that  it  has  not  been  held  for  many 
years  eiiUer  among  the  orthodox  in  New  England,^ 
or  by  a  vory  consideriible  portion  of  the  ministers  of 
the  Preshyterian  church.  1  may  be  permitted  here 
to  adduce  the  testimony  of  a  man  of  deservedly  high 
reputation;  a  man  never  suspected  of  a  departure 
from  ortiiodoxy  ;  and  a  man  whose  authority  is  high, 
not  only  in  New  England,  but  in  the  Presbyterian 
church — tlieRev.Dr.  vVoods,  of  Andover.  Hesays: 
"  Tlie  iuipulaiion  of  sUlain''s  sin  to  his  posterity,  in 
(■any  sense  which  those  words  naturally  and  properly 
1  convey,  is  a  doctrine  which  we  do  not  believe.  In 
/Scripture,  the  word  impute  signifies  uniformly,  if  I 
■mistake  not,  charging  or  reckoning  to  a  man  that 
which  is  his  own  attribute  or  act.  Every  attempt 
which  has  been  made  to  prove  that  God  ever  iin- 
putes  to  man  any  sinful  disposition  or  act,  which  is 
not  strictly  his  own,  has,  in  my  judgment,  failed  of 
^success." — Letters  to  Unitarians,  pp.  44,  45.  In  sta- 
"ting,  therefore,  my  dissent  from  this  doctrine,  I  did 
not  suppose  that  I  was  departing  from  the  Bible  ;  from 
the  sentiments  of  the  great  mass  of  orthodox  divines; 
/  or  from  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of 
I  Faith.  For  the  Conies.sion  is  explicit.  It  does  not 
eay  that  the  first  sin  of  Adam  is  charged  to  his  poste- 
rity, but  that  the  GUILT  of  titat  sin  is  so  charged  on 
them.  And  understanding  the  word  ^uilt  as  an  obli- 
gation to  suffer  evils  which  Vv^ere  designed  to  express 
the  Divine  displeasure  against  the  sin,  i  have  not  de- 
nied it,  and  d<>  not  deny  it. 

The  only  ither  form  of  doctrine  relating  to  the 
transaction  with  Adam,  which  it  is  needful  to  no- 
tice, is  that  which  1  have  stated  under  the  previous 
'charge,'  and  which  it  was  my  design  to  teach.    It 


t9  APPENDIX. 

consists  in  the  admission  of  the  simple  faclst,  as 
they  occur,  and  in  the  simple  st.itement  of  the 
facts  in  tlie  Bible,  vviiiiout  an  attempt  to  explain 
them  by  either  tlie  theory  o^  ■personal  oneness  with 
Adam,  or  ol"  charging  on  m:in  that  wliich  in  no  sense 

Froperiy  belongs  lohim.  litiien  it  be  asked  whetlier 
hold  that  the  sin  ot  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  poster- 
ity? 1  answer,  tiuit  it  by  the  doctrine  it  be  meant  that 
there  was  a  persona!  identity  between  Adam  and  his 
posterity,  so  tiiat  his  sin  became  truly  and  properly 
theirs,  1  do  not  hold  it;  and,  in  rejeclin;?  it.  1  concur 
with  all,  or  nearly  all,  tlie  ministers  ot"  the  present^ 
day.  If  this  were  so,  then  the'sin  of  the  posterity  of 
Aaam  woidd  bo  actual,  and  not  oriiiin;il;  it  would  be 
personal,  and  not  a  derived  corrupted  nature. 

Again:  If  by  imputation  it  be  meant  liiat  the  per- 
sonal qualities  of  Adam  were  trani-ferred,  or  set  over 
to  hia  posterity;  or  transfued  into  the  essence  of  the 
Boul;  1  answer,  that  I  do  not  hold  it.  The  theory  is 
impossible,  and  the  whole  church  denies  any  such 
transfer.  Any  transfer  of  personal  qualities  is  utter- 
ly impossible,  and  any  such  doctrine  is  absurd. 

If  it  be  asked,  whether  men  are  ill-deserving  and 
blameworthy,  for  the  sin  of  Adani ;  that  they  are  so 
regarded  by  God,  and  so  tri-ated,  I  answer,  that  I  do 
not  believe  it ;  and  in  denying  it,  I  concur  with  the 
most  eminent  and  orthodox  divines  in  the  land;  with 
the  Bible,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  with  common 
sense. 

Ifi  be  asked,  then,  v/bether  I  rejnct  the  doctrine  of 
imputation,  I  answer  no.  No  doctrine  is  more  com- 
mon in  the  Scriptures;  and  kw  words  are  more  fre- 
quently used  than  the  word  impute.  Butl  hold  it  as 
[  a  great  principle,  that  is  never  to  be  departed  from, 
S  and  which  will  shape  all  a  man's  views  of  the  divine 
'  government,  that  all  God's  lmputa tigns  are  accor- 
,  DING  TO  truth,  and  none  of  them  unjust  or  false. 
He  does  not  reckon  that  I  stretched  lortii  my  hand  in 
Paradise,  and  plucked  and  ate  the  lorbidden  fruit,  for 
it  was  not  so;  and  to  reckon  it  so,  would  be  contrary 
to  the  historical  fact.  But  Godreckons,  or  imputes, 
things  just  as  lliey  are.  Step  by  step,  and  point  by 
point,  he  imputes  things  just  as  they  occur.  He 
reckoned  [I  ]  that  Adam  was  pure  and  holy  when  cre- 
ated; [2. J  that  he  was  at  the  head  of  the  race;  and 
on  trial  lor  human  nature;  [3.]  that  if  he  lell,  all 
would  fall ;  [4.]  that  he  actually  fell,  and  brought 
death  into  the  world  and  all  our  wo;  [5.]  that  his  lall, 
according  to  the  wise  law,  or  const ituiinn  of  things 
which  he  had  ordained,  would  involve  all  his  posteri- 
ty in  ruin  ;  [6.]  that  his  posterity  are,  in  consequence 
ofliissin,  born  with  a  nature  corrupt,  depraved,  and 
prone  to  sin;  [7.]  that  their  first  moral  acts,  and  all 


APPENDIX.  79 

their  moral  acts,  in  this  world  or  in  any  other,  would 
be  wron:f,    iitilesd  ihey   are   renewed  ;  [8  ]  llial  man 
siiould  be  subjected  to  a  curc;e,  and  the  eartii  be  eub- 
jected  to  a  cur.se,  and  a  loiij^  train  of  woet<  be  intro- 
duced a.sa  consc'iuence  of" the  sin  liom  wliich  nothin;? 
would   deliver  but  an  atonement ;  19.J  that  all   this 
was  necessary  as  a  proper  expression  ot   his  hatred 
o(  the  transijression  of   Adam  ;  as  evincing  his  dis- 
pleasure in  the  most  marked  and  decided  manner  in 
which  it  was  possible;  and  that  these  are  inflictions 
ofa  righteous  lawgiver,  descending  on  men  accord- 
ing to  an   arrangement   wiiicli   is  wise,   and   wliich 
mif^ht  have  resulted  in  theeternalleliciryofihe  great 
society  of  which  Adam  was  the  head  and  lather.    In 
all  this  God  reckons  things  just  as   they  are,  and  as 
ihey  ought  to  be  reckoned  ;  and  all  his  imputations 
are  according  to  truth.    In  such  a  reckoning,  or  im- 
putation, I  assuredly  believe.    I  may  add,  thai  I  have 
always  intended  to  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Pela- 
gians and  Socinians,  and  wish  now  to  be  understood  as 
rejecting  them — that  men  sin  only  by  imitation,  and 
example.     On  this  subject  it   would  be  easy  to  quote 
largely  from  my  book,  and  the  extracts  already  re- 
ferred to  are  satisfactory.     Much  has  been  gained  by 
the  discussion  on  this  point  during  the  i'ew  years  past. 
It  is  now  conceded  en  all  hands,  that  it  is  not  to  be 
helil  or  taught  by  any  class  ol  theologians,  either  (1.) 
.  that  men  are  to  blmne,  or  are  to  be  esteemed  blame- 
(  worthy,  or  ill-deserving,  for  the  sin  of  Adam  ;  and 
I  (2.)  as  a  consequence,  that  they  are  not  to   be  culled 
(  on  to  repent  for  this  sin.    In  all  the  statements  which 
i  are  to  be  made  on  this  subject,  let  these  points  be  con- 
I  ceded  and  kept  constantly  in  view,  and  all  controver- 
j  sy  will  cease.    All  that  the  new  school  brethren  have 
been  struggling  lor,  is,  the  doctrine  that  men  are  not 
to  be  represented  as  to  blame,  or  as  ill-desei'ving,  for 
a  sin  committed  long  before  they  were  born,  and  that 
they  are  not  to  be  called  on  to  repent  of  it.     With  all 
the  statements  of  these  brethren  respecting  the/«c^if 
in  the  case — the  exposure  to  sin,  aud  death,    ai.d  ca- 
llamity,    and  wo,  in  consequence  of  that  sin,    they 
(agree;  and,  with  this  understanding,  they  can  labor 
and  act  together  in  harmony  and  in  love. 

My  delence,  under  this  charge,  is,  (1.)  That  the 
Confession  of  Faith  nowhere  says,  either  that  the 
"first  SIN  of  Adam,"  or  any  other  sin  of  Adam,  was 
imputed  to  his  posterity,  'f  heframersol  this  confes- 
sijn  used  language  accurately,  and  definitely.  Had 
they  intended  to  have  conveyed  that  doctrine,  that 
language  would  have  been  used.  Buf  their  l.inguage 
id  definite,  and  clear.  They  say  that  the  "guilt  of 
his  sin  was  imputed."  Though  this  diHerence  may 
appear  to  be  small,  yet  it  is  as  wide  as  is  coBceiva- 


£0  APPENDIX. 

ble.    To  impute  a  sin  to  a  man  which  he  never  com- 
miited,  isone  ihiii;?;  to  impute  the  guilt  of  that  sin, 
ihiit  is,  an  obli^^ation  or  exposfddess  to  judicial  suHer- 
,  insr  on  account  ol'il,  i^j  another  thing.    The  latter  i»- 
I  the  doctrine  of  our  Confession,  and  oJ'the  Bible;  the 
(former   is  nowhere  tau<jht  in  either.    Had  the  ;e«i 
lan{?uage  of  tlie  ('onfession  on  tliis  subject  been  re- 
carded;  had  there  been  always  accurate  eludy  uf  itn 
precise  and  very  definite  expressions;  no  pmall  par', 
of  the  dilKcuhies  which  have  arisen  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian church   would  have  been  avoided.    (2.)  I  have 
not  tauglitaiiy  ihiuH:  contrary  to  what  the  Confession 
leaches  on  llus  subject.    If  what  is  meant  then  by  the 
/phrase  "  the  guilt  of  his  sin  is  imputed,"  or  reckoned 
(to  his  posterity,  i)e,  that  ihey  are  liable,  ae  they  come 
/into  the  world,  to  evils  which  are  designed  to  express 
'.  God's  abhorrence  of  sin;  that  they  are  born  with  a 
..  depraved  nature  ;  that  they  will  sin  as  soon  as  they 
(  begin  to  act  as  moral  asents,  whenever  tliiU  may  be, 
f  and   in  whatever   world  they  may   be   piaced,    that 
'  without  renewal  they  caimot  be  saved,  anil  that  ;ill 
this  i>!  designed  to  exhibit  God's  abhorrence  of  sin, 
then  I  have  not  denied  it;  but  have  tau-rht  it.    That 
all  the  sutl'erings  to  which  the  posterity  of  Adam  are 
subjected,  in  coiisciiuence  oi'  his  sii>,  are  designed  as 
evilsof  a  judiciid  nature,  intended  to  set  i'urth  his  ab- 
horrence of  the  crime,  I  have  no  doubt.     When  the 
family  of  Achan  was  destroyed  lor  his  sin,  [  have  no 
doubt  that  it  was  intended  to  exhibit  the  abhorrence 
■-  which  God  h;ui  ofiliedeed.     When  the  tiimily  ol  the 
drunkard   sutler  for  the  sin  of  iheir  ialiier,  1  have  no 
doubt  that  it  is  the  design  of  God  lo  express  his  abhor- 
rence in  this  way  of  the  oll'ence,  and  to  mi'ke  ihisaf- 
lecting  appeal  to  all  fathers,   to  deter  them  Irotu  the 
crime.     vVhen  the  projjerty  ol  the  traitor  is  confis- 
cated, and  his  blood  attainted,  and  his  finiily  reduced 
to  poverty  and  disgrace,  1  have  no  doulil  that  it  is  ail 
done  that  the  law  may  express  its  al)horre:ice  of  the 
crime  of  treason.    So  lar,  it  is  a  judicial  indiction;  not 
regarding  the  sufferers  as  blameworthy — except  the 
traitor  himsell — but  makir-.g  use  of  the  "  social  liabil- 
ities," where  other  means  could  not  be  resorted  to,  to 
\  express  the  deep  sense  of  the  crinic,  and  to  deter 
i  from  its  commission.    As   this  is   the  only  sense  in 
!  which  a  posterity  can  be  said  to  be  "guilty"  of  the 
/  Clime  of  an  ancestor,  it  must  be  so  under.-ilood  in  the 
I  Confession  of  Faith.     This  doctrine,  I  have  never  de- 
'  nied.    My  only  objection  has  ever  been  to  the  use  of 
the  woru  ''  gitill  in  common  discourse,  on  the  ground^ 
that  it  is  usually  understooo  to  convey  the  sense  of 
blameworlliiiuss,  or  ill-deserl. 

In  regard  to  this  charge,  the  following  alterations 
l>ave  been  made  in  the  lourlh  edition  of  the  Notes  on 
\hi  Romans : 


APPENDIX.  81 

P.  121,!?0fnn(l  col.  line  4tli  from  the  l)Ollom,  iiigtetid 
ol  'For  to  siiy  lliat  1  mim  iriiilly  ofiiiioihcr  in  vvliich  I 
had  no  a<jei!cy,'  read,  "  For  (o  say  tliai,  1  am  ()iame- 
worthy,  or  ill-deserving,  for  a  sin  in  which  1  had  no 
agency." 

'P.  119.  "  Tlie  very  expression  here  ip  ns-ainst  the 
eupposition  tiiat  inlanis  are  inierided.  One  lorm  of 
the  doctrine  of  imputation,  as  lieki  hy  Edwards,  Stap- 
ler, &c.  has  been.  thai,  there  was  a  cont^tiinted  one- 
ness or  personal  identy  between  Adam  and  his  poste- 
rity; and  that  lii.s  ein  was.  rei^arded  as  trnly,  and 
properly  theirs;  and  they  as  personally  blameworthy 
or  ill-ueserviiig  (or  it,  in  the  same  manner  as  a  man 
at  40  is  answerable  lor  his  crime  committed  at  20.  If 
this  doctrine  be  Irne,  then  it  is  certain  that  iht^y  not 
only  had  '  sinneil'  alter  the  similitude  of  '  Adam's 
transsfressinn,'  but  had  comniilledtlie  very  identical 
sin,  and  ihat  they  were  answerable  for  it  as  tlieir 
own.  But  tiiis  doctrine  is  now  abandoned  by  all,  or 
nearly  all  wlio  profess  to  i>e  Calvinists,  and  as  the 
apostle  expressly  says  that  liiey  had  not  sinned  after 
the  siniiliiude  of  Adam's  transgression,  it  cannot  be 
intended  here. 

Charsre   HI. 

Tho  seventh  charge  is  that  I  deny  "  that  mankind  are  puilty 
i.  e.  liable  to  punishment  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam." 

Proof  1.  p.  123.  "There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they 
nre  condemned  to  eternal  death,  or  held  to  be  guilty  nt'liis  eiu, 
witliuui  jjuiiii-iputiun  of  iheir  own,  or  wiihoul  personal  sin, 
any  more  than  there  is  that  they  are  approved  by  the  work  of 
Christ,  or  held  to  be  personally  deserving,  without  etiibracing 
his  olTer,  and  receiving  him  as  a  Saviour." 

Proof  2.  p.  127.  The  word  is  in  no  instance  used  to  express 
the  idea  of  imputing  that  to  one  which  belongs  to  another.  It 
here  eiiher  means  that  this  was  by  a  constitution  o/  divine 
appointment  that  ihcy  in  fact  beeume  sinners,  or  simply  de- 
clares that  they  were  so  in  fact.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
intimation  thai  it  was  by  imputation.  The  whole  scope  of  the 
argument  is,  moreov(r,  against  this;  for  the  obj.  ct  of  the 
apostle  is  to  show  not  that  they  were  charged  with  the  sin  of 
another,  but  that  they  were  in  fact  sinners  themselves.  If  it 
means  that  they  were  condemned  for  his  act,  without  any 
concurrence  of  their  own  will,  then  the  correspondent  part 
will  be  true,  that  all  are  constituted  righteous  in  the  same  way  ; 
and  thus  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  will  be  inevitable. 
But  as  none  are  constituted  righteous  who  do  not  voluntarily 
avail  themselves  of  the  provisions  of  inercy,  so  it  follows  that 
those  who  are  condenmed,  are  not  condemned  for  the  sin  of 
another  without  their  own  concurrence,  nor  unless  they  per- 
sonally deserve  it. 

Sinners. — Transgressors  ;  those  who  deserve  to  be  punished. 
It  does  not  mean  those  who  are  condemned  for  the  sin  of 
another;  but  those  who  are  violators  of  the  law  of  God.  All 
who  are  condemned  are  sinners.  They  are  not  innocent  per- 
6ons  condemned  for  the  crime  of  another.  Men  may  be  in- 
volved in  the  emscgucnccs  of  the  sine  of  others  without  being 


82  APPENDIX. 

to  blame.  The  consequences  of  the  crimes  of  a  murderer,  a 
drunkard,  a  pirate,  may  pass  over  from  tliem,  and  affect 
thousands,  and  whelm  them  in  ruin.  Bui  this  does  not  prove 
that  they  are  blame  worlh>." 

Proof  3.  p.  123.  '"Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  ex- 
plain this.  The  most  common  has  been  that  Adam  was  the 
representriive  of  the  race;  that  he  was  a  covenant  head,  and 
thai  his  s'ui  was  imputed  to  his  posterity,  and  that  they  were 
held  liable  to  punisnmeril  for  it  as  if  they  had  cominilied  it 
themselves.  But  to  this  there  are  great  and  insuptrable  objec- 
tions. *♦♦  (3)  It  explains  nothing.  The  diflicuity  still  re- 
mains. Il  is  certainly  as  difhcull  to  see  how,  in  a  just  admi- 
Kistratioii,  the  sins  of  the  guilty  should  be  charged  on  the 
innocent,  as  to  contempldte  simply  the  universal  fad  that  the 
conduct  of  one  man  may  involve  his  family  in  ihe  consequen- 
ces. (1)  It  adds  anuther  difficulty  to  the  subject.  Iinotoiily 
explains  nothing,  removes  no  perplexity,  but  it  com.jels  us  at 
once  to  ask  the  question,  how  can  this  be  just  ?  How  can 
it  be  riifhi  to  charge  the  sins  of  the  guilty  on  those  who  had 
no  participation  in  them?  How  could  millions  be  responsible 
for  the  sins  of  one  who  ncted  long  before  they  had  an  exist- 
ence, and  of  whose  ".ci  they  had  no  consciousness,  and  in 
which  they  had  no  participation  V 

"  How  can  it  bo  right"  for  a  person  to  advance  such  doc- 
trines, who  ha?  professed  to  believe  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Catechisms  of  the  Presbyterian  Church?  •  Kead  the  fol- 
lowing passages  and  then  answer. 

Con.  VI.  lii.  vi.    Lar.  Cat.  25.  27.     Sh.  Cai.  18,  19. 

After  the  lull  exaniiaaliun  which  I  have  eubmilted 
of  the  preceding  charges,  it  is  not  necessary  tu  occupy 
much  time  on  this.  Probably  the  main  facts  in  the 
case,  in  relation  to  the  etiects  of  thf  transgression  of 
Adam  on  his  posterity,  would  not  constitute  a  point 
of  ditlerence  between  Dr.  Junkin  and  myself.  Our 
dillerence  here  relates  to  terms;  and  it  is  idle  to 
waste  words  in  a  mere  logomachy. 

Dr.  Junkin  liolds  that  we  are  '  liable  to  punishment,' 
on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  It  is  of  importance, 
therofore,  that  there  should  be  here  a  correct  expla- 
nati'jn  of  terms. 

W  he  means  by  the  phrase  that  mankind  come  into 
the  world  with  a  certainty  that  they  will  sin  when 
they  become  moral  agents,  I  have  not  denie<l  it. 

if  he  me-,ins  that  they  are  born  with  a  hereditary 
depravity,  or  pro|)('iioity,  or  liability  to  sin,  resulting 
from  their  connexion  with  Adam,  1  have  not  denied 
it. 

If  he  means  that  they  will  suffer  ;ihat  they  will  be 
exposed  to  many  disadvantages;  that  tiiey  will  expe- 
rience pain,  and  death,  in  consef{uence  ol  that  con- 
nexion, and  of  the  same  kind  as  if  they  hud  ihcin- 
eelves  sinned,  I  iiave  not  denied  it. 
'  If  he  means  that  these  suiferings  are  suitable  for 
the  moral  governor  of  the  universe  to  inflict  in  order 
to  express  his  abhorrence  lor  sin,  and  his  seufce  ol"  its 


APPENDIX,  83 

ill-desert,  I  have  not  denied  it.    For  I  have  never 
doubted  that  the  privations,  and  losses;  the  heiedi- 
Tary  tendency  to  sin  ;  tiie  phame,disgriice,  and  loss  of 
Ctharacteraiid  properly  which  ensue  to  the  posterity 
c?/-©- a  drunkard,  a  pirate,  and  a  murderer,  are  (lesi^rncJ, 
(rn^'ihe  great  principles  ot  tiie  organizalion  ol" society, 
cii  -efiaii  expression  of  God's  abhorrence  of  those  crimes, 
and  as  an   iiicenlive  to  virtue  by   the  apprehension 
that  these  calamil  ics  will  follow.    In  no  other  way,  lor 
example,  could  the  evil  consequences,  and  the  crimi- 
nality of  suicide  be  aiade  to  i\p[)ear  than  by  causing 
the  consequences  of  the  act  to  pass  over  and  termi- 
nate on  the  reputation  and  feelings,  ^nd  property  of 
posterity.      The  self-murderer  by  his  own  act  re- 
moves  himself  from  all  punishment  on  earth,   and 
from  all  expression  in  his  own  person   here  of  God's 
sense  of  his  crime.    But   some   such  exitressions  are 
needed    in  order  to    deter    others    from    the  deed. 
Suffering  and  shame,  therefore,  are   made  to   pass 
over;  and  impinge  on  all  who  are  connected  with 
him.    So  a  suitable   sense  of  the  enormity   of   the 
crime  of  Achan  could  not  be  expressed  except  by  the 
sufferings  inHicted  on  his  iamily,  and  even  by  the  de- 
struciio'i  of  his  property.    So  in  order  to  express  the 
deep  abhorrence  of  a  moral  governor  against  the 
crime  of  treason,  and  to  show  its  criminality  with  an 
emphasis  beyond  what  the  death  of  tlie  traitor  him- 
self could  do,  the  law  ai)points  sufferings,  and  disad- 
vantages in  relation  to  his  Iamily.    His  property  is 
confiscated,  his  blood  attainted  ;  and  tha  honors  and 
titles  that  would  otherwise  have  descended  to  his 
heirs,  are  withdrawn.    It  is  the  only  way  in  which 
the  proper  sense  of  the  enormity  of  the  crime  can  be 
expressed  so  as  to  deter  others.    In  iha  facts  in  the 
case,  therefore,  there  can  be  no  controversy.    But 
when  it  should  be  insisted  that  the  family  of  Achan 
was  guilty  of  his  crime,  and  were  "  punished"  for  it ; 
Avhen,  as  in  order  to   be  consistent,  it  must  be  held 
that  "  the  silver,  and  the  garment,  and  the  wedge  of 
gold — and  his  oxen,  and  his  asses,  and   his  sheep, 
and  his  tent,  and  all  that  he  had,"  Josh.  vii.  24,   that 
were  destroyed  in  consequence  of  his  crime    were 
"  guilty"  also,  and  were  '"punished",  our  objection 
is  to  the  use  of  the  language,  and  not  to  the  facts  in 
the  case.    Should  it  be  said  that  the  descendents  of  a 
traitor  were  guilty  of  his  act  of  treason,  and  that 
they  were  pnnished  Cor  it,  we  migiit  agree  in  regard 
toiae  facts  ;  our  difference  would  oeriain  only  to  the 
proper  use  of  language.     So  in  regard  to  Adam.    In 
the  main  facts,  we  agree.    But  when  it  h  said  that  a// 
the  evil  consequences  of  his  act,  anJ/.U  the  sufferings 
that  have  ensued  are  to  be  set  down  as  punishment, 
*       and  that  all  that  are  effected  by  them  are  guilty  of 
his  sin,  we  at  once  revolt  at  this  use  cf  language,  and 


St  APPENDIX, 

ask  how  can  ihc  frroanin"  rroalion  be  Baid  to  hd 
punisked — the  beasts  olthe  fioKI,  and  the  very  tarth 
brui«;iii.^  fi^rih  briars  and  thorns  ?  Is  the  earth  guilty, 
and  are  tlie  hills  and  vak's  ■piuiiahed  7 

The  only  enquiry,  thcrrlnre,  here  is,  what  is  meant 
hy  fi^nill  ;itid  by  punish i/un(  ? 

1  would  observe  then,  that   the  words  ffw'lt  and 
p««Js/<w  ?/<  are  by  no  means   to  be  conloundcd  witli 
the  words  criminality,  or  ill  desert.     1  sliall  endeavor 
to  show  liuit  ,^?<//<  always  eupposee  criminalily,  and 
is  based  on  it ;  but  it  is  not  the  same.     It  may  be  defi- 
ned to  be   an  obli^alion    to  punishment  yb/- ;;£-/\sor/</i 
[criminalily.     Here   is   ihij  diU'eronre  between    Dr. 
.Junkin  and  myself.    He  supposes  that  it  is  an  obliga- 
tion  to   punishment  wilkont  personal  oriminalily,  or 
^Vll-deseit.     I  maintain  that  it  always,  when  correctly 
hised,  implies  persoiial  ill-desert  liiat  is  the  measure 
*^of  the  |)unisliment  due.     In  other  words,  he  supposes 
.that  a  man  may  be  said  to  be  punished  lor  a  crima 
'  which  is  not  his  own,  but  which  is  charged  on  him  by 
.'imputation;  1  maintain  that  it  a/ways  implies  perso- 
nal ill -desert,  and  that  any  other  use  of  the  term  is  a 
departure   from   the  correct  use  of  language.      In 
support  o(  this,  I  shall  appeal  to  modern  usa-re,  and 
to  the  old  theological  usaj^e,  and  thus  shew  that  there 
is  a  real  departure  in  many  modern  vieivs  j'rom  the 
ancient  ihcolojrical  lavf^uage  ol"  the  schools  as  well 
as  from  their  doclrines. 

1.  (JaiU,  from  gildcni,  to  pay,  is  defined  to  be  "  cri- 
minality ;  that  stale  of  a  moral  agent  which  results 
Irom  Jtis  actual  commission  of  a  crime  or  ofience, 
knovving  it  to  be  a  crime,  a  violation  of  law.  Guilt 
renders  a  person  a  debtor  to  the  law  as  it  binds  him 

,   to  pay  a  penally  in  rnoiiey  or  in  sutiering.  Guilt  ihere- 
^  fore  implies  both  criminality,  and  liableness  lopunish- 
1  mem.'"— ^Wubsttr.    The  idea  here  is,  that  the  liable- 
'  ness  to  punishment  results  from  the  actual  cummis- 
nion  of  a  crim'i  or  offence.    Punishment  is  defined  to 
be  "  any  pain  or  sulfering  inflicted  on  a  person /or  a 
crime  or  offence,  l)y  tlTe  authority  to  which  the  otiend- 
\  er  is  subject,  either  by   the  constituiion  of  Gcd,  or  of 
'  civil  society." — [Vcbster.     In   this   definition   the  ne- 
cessity of  a  crime  or  off'ence  is  declared  in  order  to 
make  eulfering,  puniskmtnt. 

2.  The  san)e  is  the  use  ol  the  terms  in  common  life, 
and  in  law.     When  a  jury  find  a  man  guilty,  it  is  not 

-merely  a  I'nding  him  liable  to  suffer,  but  it  is  a  finding. 

that   he  has*  committed  a   crime,  or  o//ence,  and  is 

,  t/ierefure  justly  liable  to  punishment.    A  jury  or  court 

;'  never  think  of  separating  the  h\eixol'  personal  offence, 

';  or  crime  from  tlnir  ideas  of  pu?iishment.'  The  wjiole 

system  ol  jurisjirudence,  as  is  known  to  all,  is  fcui^|sd 

on  this.    Tlie  idea,  once  introduced  into  the  lawsmd 

courtSjOf  finding  men  guilty  of  oliences  which  twy 


APPENDIX.  85 

never  committed,  and  exposing  Uiein  to  pnnisliment 
where  there  was  no  criminality  would  shock  the  mo- 
ral sense  ql  the  community,  and  be  regarded  as  the 
very  definition  and  summit  ol  tyranny.  Biackstone 
defines  pimislimmt  to  be  ''  the  npht  ol  the  temporal 
legislator  to  inflict  discretionary  penalties  for  crimes 
and  misdemeanors,'"  [vol.  iv.  7J,  and  sustains  his  defi- 
nition by  the  whole  of  his  reasoning  in  this  chapter. 
Lord  Coke,  than  whom  no  man  better  understood  the 
precise  meaning  ol  terms,  quotes  it  as  a  maxim  of 
law,  that  "  no  one  is  punished  lor  the  sin  of  another." 
Nemo  punitur  pro  alieno  delicto.  Coke  upon  Little- 
Ion,  vol.  iii.  p.  368.  Grotius  [de  Jure  Bel.  et  Pa. 
B.  ii.  ch.  XX.  §1,]  says,  that  punishment  is  an  evil  ot 
suffering  which  is  inflicted  on  account  of  tkc  evil  of  an 
action.  Malum  passionis,  quod  infligitur  ob  malum  ac- 
tionis.  It  is  an  ancient  maxim,  he  observes,  that "'  he 
who  does  evil  shall  bear  it."  Idem  §2.  Jui  male  fecit 
malum  ferat.  Tiiose  evils,  he  says,"  which  were  suf- 
fered among  the  Hebrews  on  account  of  a  contagious 
disease,  or  a  deformed  or  mutilated  body,  or  other  dis- 
parities, "are  not  properly  punishment,  although  on 
account  of  resemblance,  and  abuse  of  the  term  they 
are  called  by  that  name."  §1.  Thus  Grotius  alsoquotes 
Augustine  as  saying  thiit  "  all  punishment,  if  it  is 
just,  is  the  punishment  of  sin."  Omnis  poena,  sijueta 
est,  peccati  poena  est.  §3.  And  in  regard  to  the  word 
guilt  he  quotes  from  Augustine  the  doctrine  that,  un- 
der the  divine  government  guilt  exists  where  punish- 
ment is  not  seen  to  follow.  Latet  culpa  ubi  non  latet 
poena.  §3.  And  again  B.  ii.  ch.  xx.  §28,  Grotius  ex- 
pressly says,  that  "  no  one  is  to  be  punished  beyond 
his  ili-desert,"  and  api)eals  to  Horace,  to  Cicero,  to 
Aristi  es,  and  to  Demosthenes.  The  doctrine  in  the 
laws  it  s  believed  is  established  beyond  the  possibility 
of  dispute. 

3.  The  same  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  I  appeal 
here  to  the  general  aspect  and  tenor  of  the  scriptures 
as  sustaining  the  yyosition  iha.t  punishment  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  evil  inflicted  by  a  just  moral  governor 
for  personal  offence.  And  we  may  safely  challenge 
any  man  to  trrmg  any  place,  where  the  words  impl>-- 
ing  guilt  and  punishment,  are  used  in  any  other  sense. 
Tliere  is  no  place  where  it  is  aflirmed  that  men  are 
punished  for  the  sins  of  another  ;  and  were  there,  it 
would  be  such  a  departure  from  the  common  use  of 
language,  and  from  the  obvious  principle  of  common 
justice,  as  to  neutralize  no  small  part  of  all  the  proofs 
that  could  be  brought  for  )he  truth  ol  a  divine  revela- 
tion. I  appeal  particularly  to  the  doctrine  laid  down 
inEze.  xviii.  3.  4.  19.  20,  as  in  accordance  with  all  our 
views  jof  justice,  and  as  expressly  disclaiming  the  idea 
ol  inflicting  punishment  on  men  for  the  sins  of  their 
ancestors.    Thus  the  Latin  reus  and  reutus  retain 


"4 
86  APPENDIS^. 

the  idea  of  a  debt  which  is  due,  and  which  a  defed- 
danl  is  justly  bound  to  pay ;  or  oi  ^uilt  or  criminality, 
which  deserve  to  be  punished,  and  which  is  bo  ad- 
judged in  law.  Thus  in  the  New  Testament  the 
word  enochos  guilty,  retains  the  idea  of  binding,  or 
obligation  enechomai  to  punishment.  U  occurs  ten 
/times.  When  (Math.  xxvi.  66.)  the  Jews  said  "  he  is 
(guilty  of  death,''  they  meant  to  say  that  he  deserved 
\todie;  that  they  had  found  him  criminal  lor  blas- 
phemy (v.  65) ;  and  that  therefore  he  deserved  ac- 
cording to  their  law  to  be  put  to  death.  They  did  not 
intend  to  express  simply  an  obligation  to  suffer  that 
which  he  had  not  deserved,  but  to  declare  in  the 
strongest  terms  possible  that  he  deserved  to  die 
When  our  Savior,  in  Mark  iii.  29,  says  of  him  that 
shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Ghost  that  "he 
hath  now  forgiveness,  but  is  in  danf^er  of  eternal 
damnation  enochos  est  aioniou  kriseoe,  he  did  not 
not  mean  to  say  that  he  was  bound  to  a  punishment 
which  he  did  not  personally  deserve,  but  that  for  a 
criminality  in  the  case,  he  would  be  justly  hable  to 
that  punishment.  The  same  sense  occurs  in  1  Cor. 
xi.  27 :  "  Shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord,"  i.  e.  their  conduct  at  the  Lord's  table,  in  the 
case  specified,  would  be  so  blameworthy  as  to  consti- 
tute the  crime  of  despising  his  body.  See  also  Math. 
V.  21,  22 ;  Mark  xiv.  64 ;  Heb.  ii.  15 ;  James  ii.  10. — In 
the  same  sense  is  the  word  used  by  the  Ixx.  who 
employ  the  term  enochos,  guilty,  for  the  translation 
of  dom  and  domini,  and  in  the  sense  of  deserving 
punishment,  in  Ex.  xxii.  3;  Lev.  xx.  9,  11.  12,  13, 16, 
27;  Num.  xxxv.  27;  Deut.  xix.  10;  and  in  the  same 
sense  in  Jos.  ii.  19;  Ex.  xxxiv.  7;  Num.  xiv.  18,  xxxv. 
31,  &c.  The  Scripture  use  of  the  word,  therefore,  is 
established. 
-  4.  The  old  Calvinistic  writers  used  the  word  in  the 
)  same  sense  as  denoting  a  liability  to  punishment  for 
personal  offence,  and  not  for  the  sin  of  another.  They 
saw  the  common  sense,  and  Scripture  use,  of  lan- 
guage; they  saw  the  absurdity  of  speaking  oi  guilt, 
where  there  was  no  criminality,  and  oi  punishment, 
where  there  had  been  no  personal  offence,  and  they 
therefore  adopted  the  theory  of  our  oneness,  or  per- 
sonal identity  with  Adam,  making  his  sin  strictly 
and  properly  ours,  and  predicating  the  doctrine  that 
we  are  exposed  to  punishment  on  account  of  it  in  that 
doctrine.  Their  language  was  consistent  with  these 
views,  and  though  their  views  were  erroneous 
[I,  about  such  an  identity  with  Adam,  yet  their  lan- 
guage is  in  accordance  with  common  sense  and  the 
Bible.  The  refinement  of  modern  times  seems  not  to 
\have  occurred  to  them,  to  deny  that  the  sin  is  oura, 
that  we  are  ill-deserving,  and  yet  to  talk  of  our  guilt 
for  the  crime  of   another ;   and    our  liablenett  to 


APPENDIX.  87 

jmnishment — for  a  sin  which  is  not  our«.  My  objec- 
tion, therefore,  to  the  language  in  question,  is,  that 
the  mere  fragments  of  a  system  are  retained,  with- 
out their  consistency  ;  and  that  thus  language  is  torn 
from  its  proper  and  acknowledged  meaning.  There 
was  the  beauty  of  consistency  in  the  architecture  of 
ancient  frowning  castles,  hoary  and  dark  as  they 
were — for  the  work  was  in  keeping ;  hut  here  we 
have  pieces  of  the  wainscoting,  and  balustrades,  and 
frowning  towers,  which  men  insist  on  atiachingj  to 
modern  houses,  and  with  which  to  grace  Corinthian 
capitals  and  columns.  We  have  language  divested 
of  its  proper  signification,  and  in  denance  of  all  the 
well  known  usages  of  men  in  all  times. 

That  this  charge  is  not  unfounded — that  the  older 
writers  used  the  words  guilt  and  punishment  as  ba^ed 
upon  commonaTrty  always,  and  as  implying  an  obli- 

fation  to  suTie^r/or  that,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  prove, 
or  the  passages,  I  am  indebted  to  the  Biblical  Re- 
f)ertory,  and  shall  take  cases  which  are  adduced  there 
or  the  very  opposite  purpose.  (Vol.  ii.  p.  440.)  Tur- 
retin  (Tom.  i.  p.  654,)  says,  "  Reatus  thcologiee  dici- 
tur  obligatio  ad  poenam  ex  peccato.  Guilt,  among 
theologians,  is  denned  to  be  obligation  to  punishment 
on  account  of  sin.'''  Here  the  fact  that  it  is  from  sin, 
and  according  to  it,  is  expressly  stated,  in  accordance 
with  all  that!  have  said.  Owen  says,  (On  Justifica- 
tion, p.  280,)  "  Guilt  in  Scripture  is  the  respect  or 
SIN  unto  Ike  sanction  of  the  law  whereby  the  sinner 
becomes  obnoxious  unto  punishment.  Again:  "The 
guilt  of  it  [sin]  is  nothing  but  its  respect  unto  punish- 
ment from  the  sanction  of  the  law."  Again :  (On 
Justification,  p.  280,)  he  says,  "  there  can  be  no  obli- 
gation to  punishment,  where  there  is  no  desert  of 
punishment."  Again:  "The  guilt  of  sin  is  its  de- 
sert of  punishmenL  And  where  is  not  this,  there 
can  be  no  punishment  properly  so  called." — On  Jus, 
p.  280.— Christian  Spect.  vol.  iii.  p.  307.  So  Turretin 
says,  "  The  justice  of  God  does  not  inflict  punish- 
,  MENT,  except  on  him  that  deserves  it,"  So  Ridgely 
i  says,  (vol.  ii.  p.  119,  "Guilt  is  an  obligation  or  liable- 
liess  to  suffer  punishment  for  sin  committed." 

That  there  is  some  variety  of  expression  among 
the  older  theological  vyriters,  and  some  looseness  of 
expression  on  this  subject,  I  am  not  dieinosed  to  deny. 
(Conf.  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  ii.  p.  441,  &c.)  This  fluctuatioa 
arose,  doubtless,  from  the  unsettled  views  of  many 
of  them  on  the  subjeet  of  imputation — holding  at  one 
time  the  doctrine  of  the  strict  identity  with  Adam ; 
and  at  another  holding  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation 
of  his  sin  without  such  identity.  When  they  write 
without  reference  to  ji  theory,  they  use  the  terras 

guilt  and  punishment  in  the  obvious  sense.    Thus 
rrotius,  in  his  treatise  De  Jure,  <!c.c.  uses  the  words 


88  APPENDIX. 

in  their  obvious  and  proper  sense.  When  he  had  a 
controversy  wiili  Socinus,  and  a  tlieory  lo  defend, 
he  labored  to  prove  thai  the  words  were  employed 
without  reference  to  personal  ill-desert.  But  the 
above  quotations  show,  abundantly,  that  the  proper 
and  ancient  sense  of  the  words  was  that  which  is 
based  on  the  supposition  of  previous  personal  crimi- 
nality. 

5.  vVe might  safely  leave  this  whole  subject  to  the 
common  sense  of  men.  Who,  on  hearinj^  the  word 
f^uilt,  does  not  instantly  attach  the  idea  of  personal 
ill-desert,  or  violation  of  law?  Who,  on  hearing  the 
word  punishinent,  does  not  at  once  think  oi'ciivtinal- 
ity  as  laying  the  just  foundation  lor  it?  Sutiering 
may  be  intense  ;  one  man  may  be  oppressed  by  an- 
other 3  a  subject  may  sufler  the  loSs  of  property, 
limbs  or  life,  by  a  government ;  a  martyr  may  be  seen 
writhinjj  at  the  stake,  or  expiring  amidst  the  flames; 
a  natrin^  nmv  J^leed  ou  a  battle  field ;  but  unless  he 
has  viomted  law,  and  is  personally  ill-deserving,  who 
would  speak  of  his  guilt,  or  his  punislunent  i  No^ 
one.    But  if  this  is  the  common  and  popular  sense  cf 

Yj  the  words,  it  is  the  just  sense;  nor  should  they  be 
y\  used  otherwise,  without  great  and  pressing  necessity. 
'♦If  the  words  are  used  in  a  difl'erent  sense  b>  theolo- 
logical  writers— as  1  admit  they  oltenare — then  they 
are  turned  aside  from  their  proper  signification  ;  and 
when  so  use(^",  are  exposed  to  all  the  inconvenience 
of  being  misunderstood,  or  of  being  the  means  of  con- 
veying an  erroneous  idea.  It  is  exposed  to  all  the 
inconvenience  of  technical  language;  is  a  departure 
from  the  common"  use  ol"  words;  tind  is  uninteUigible 
to  the  mass  of  men. 

6.  That  the  common  use  of  the  terms  guilt  and  pun- 
ishment is  the  true  use,  is  apparent  from  the  tact, 
that  in  no  other  way  could  a  penalty  be  possible  or 
valuable.  If  a  penalty  does  not  denote  tlie  pain  in- 
flicted by  the  Lawgiver  as  an  expression  of  his  sense 
of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  his  abhorrence  of  It,  what  would 
be  its  use,  or  how  could  it  be  threatened?  It  not  so, 
on  what  principle  can  it  be  inflicted?  How  can  a  just 
government  be  sustained,  in  the  eyes  of  moral  agents, 
if  it  holds  those  guilty  who  are  innocent ;  and  punish- 
es those  who  have  no  ill-desert  ?  This  objection  to 
tfie  language  is  insuperable.  Who  can  go  and  preach 
it?  Who  can  appeal  for  its  truth  to  the  reason  and 
common  sense  of  men?  Who  can  appeal  in  doing  it 
to  the  Bible?  Whose  mind  will  not  revolt  at  a  com- 
mission requiring  him  to  proclaim  that  men,  under 
the  Divine  administration,  are  held  to  be  guilty,  who 
are  personally  innocent ;  and  are  punished  without 
any  ill-desert  ?  And  if  it  can  be  proclaimed,  who  can 
believe  tiiat  it  will  ever  commend  itself  to  the  con- 
sciences of  men  as  a  system  just  and  equal  ?    And  is 


APPENDIX.  89 

there  no  danger  that  men  will  regard  the  system 
which  proclaims  it,  as  at  variance  with  all  their  just 
conceptions  of  a  righteous  grovcrnment,  and  religion 
as  opposed  to  the  common  sense  of  the  world  ? 

My  reply,  therefore,  to  this  charge  is,  that  on  the 
facts  in  the  case,  Dr.  J.  and  myself  are  agreed.  That 
men  suffer  most  sad  evils,  in  consequence  of"  the  apos- 
tacy  of  Adam  ;  that  those  evils  are  certain,  and  uni- 
versal;  that  they  result  from  the  connexion  with  him; 
and  that  they  are  the  appointment  of  a  wise  and  just 
moral  governor,  as  an  expression  of  the  evil  nature 
and  tendency  of  apostacy,  I  do  not  deny.  My  objec- 
tion is  to  an  unauthorised  theological  use  of  language 
— to  calling  that  guilt,  which  is  not  guilt ;  and  that 
punishment,  which  is  uot  punishment.  He  insists  on 
this  as  essential  to  orthodoxy  ;  I  doubt  its  propriety. 

The  following  corrections  have  been  made  of  the 
exceptionable  passages  here,  in  the  new  edition  of  the 
"Notes":  (1.)  The  part  from  p.  138,  has  been  wholly 
changed.  See  the  corrections  under  the  5Lh  charge. 
(2.)  On  pages  122,  123,  the  following  has  been  substi- 
tuted, instead  of'  the  statement,  a  pan  of  which  ie 
quoted  in  the  charge,  vix  : 

Pp.  122,  123.  Though  men  are  indubitably  affected  by  the 
sin  of  Adam,  as  e.  g.  by  being  born  with  a  corrupt  disposition ; 
with  loss  of  righteousness;  with  subjection  to  pain  and  wo; 
and  with  exposure  to  eternal  death,  yet  there  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  ail  those  who  die  in  infancy  are,  through  the  merits 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  an  influence  which  we  cannot  ex- 
plain, changed  and  prepared  for  heaven.  As  nearly  half  the 
race  die  in  mfancy,  therefore,  there  is  reason  to  think  that,  in 
regard  to  this  large  portion  of  the  human  family,  the  work  of 
Christ  has  more  than  repaired  the  evils  of  tlie  fall,  and  intro- 
duced them  into  heaven,  and  that  his  grace  has  thus  abound- 
ed unto  many.  In  regard  to  those  who  live  to  the  period  of 
moral  agency,  a  scheme  has  been  introduced  by  which  the 
offers  of  salvation  may  be  made  to  them,  and  by  which  they 
may  be  renewed,  and  pardoned,  and  saved.  The  work  of 
Christ,  therefore,  may  have  introduced  advantages  adapted 
to  meet  the  evils  of  the  fall;  as  man  conies  into  the  world; 
and  the  original  applicability  of  the  one  be  as  extensive  as  the 
other.  In  this  way  the  work  of  Christ  was,  in  its  nature, 
fitted  to  abound  unto  the  many. 

Charge  VIII. 

The  eighth  charge  is  in  the  following  words,  denying  "That 
Christ  sufTered  the  proper  penalty  of  the  law,  as  the  vicarious 
substitute  of  his  people,  and  thus  took  away  legally  their  sins 
and  ?iirchased  pardon." 

Proof  I.  All  trie  passages  quoted  under  charges  6  and  7  are 
referred  to  here.  If  the  sin  of  the  first  Adam  is  not  imputed 
to  his  seed,  and  they  are  not  liable  to  punishment  on  account 
of  it ;  then  it  inevitably  follows,  that  the  sin  of  his  seed  is  not 
imputed  to  the  second  Adam,  and  he  punished  on  account  of 
it. 

Proof  2.  p.  89,  90.  "In  the  plan  of  salvation,  therefore,  he 
has  shown  a  regard  to  the  law,  by  appointing  his  Son  to  be  a 


90  APPENDIX. 

substitute  mlhe  place  of  sinners;  not  to  endure  its  precwe 
penalty,  lor  his  suHerings  were  not  eternal,  nor  were  tney  at- 
tended with  remorse  of  conscience,  or  by  despair,  which  are 
the  proper  pcna/iy  of  the  law;  but  he  endured  so  much  as  to 
accomplish  ihe  same  ends  as  if  ihose  who  shall  be  saved  by 
,  him,  had  been  doomed  to  eternal  death.  That  is,  he  showed 
'  that  the  law  could  not  be  violated  without  introducing  suffer- 
ings; and  that  it  could  not  be  broken  with  impunity.  He 
showed  that  he  had  so  great  a  regard  for  it,  that  he  would  not 
pardon  one  sinner  without  an  atonement.  And  thus  he  secur- 
ed the  proper  honor  to  his  character  as  a  lover  of  his  law,  a 
hater  of  sin,  and  a  just  God.  He  has  shown  that  if  sinners 
do  not  avail  themselves  ot'lheofler  of  pardon,  by  Jesus  Christ, 
they  must  experience  in  their  own  souls  forever,  the  pains 
which  tiiis  substitute  for  sinners  endured,  in  behalf  of  men,  on 
the  cross."  Thus,  no  principle  of  justice  has  been  abandoned  ; 
no  claim  of  his  law  has  been  letdown  ;  no  disposition  has  been 
evinced  to  do  injustice  to  the  universe,  by  sutl'ering  the  guilty 
to  escape.  He  is,  in  all  this  great  transaction,  a  just  moral 
governor,  as  just  to  his  law,  to  himself,  to  his  Son,  to  the 
universe,  when  he  pardons,  as  he  is  when  he  sends  the  incor- 
rigible sinner  down  to  hell.  A  full  compensaiion,  an  equiva- 
lent has  been  provided  by  the  sufl'erings  of  the  Savior,  in  the 
sinner's  stead,  and  the  sinner  may  be  pardoned." 

How  opposite  this  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.  See 
Con.  chap.  viii.  4,  5.  xi.  3.    Larg.  Cat.  49.  Shor.  Cat.  25. 

My  views  there  are  accurately  e.xpre.?sed,  and  I 
submit  iheiti  to  the  judgment  oCmy  Presbytery. 

The  charge  which  is  liere  alleged  is  a  most  strikitij? 
Specimen  ofthe  loose  and  inaccurate  manner  in  which 
these  accusations  have  been  Irarned.  It  contains ^bwr 
counts  or  specifications,  one  only  of  which  relates  to 
the  statetnent  in  my  book,  and  the  three  others  are  m- 
ferences  which  Dr.  Junkin  supposes  my  doctrine  leads 
10  ;  and  which,  by  a  common  mode  of  controversial- 
ists, he  charges  me  with  holding.  To  this  entire  pro- 
ceeding of  charging  me  with  holding  certain  infer- 
ences which  he  chooses  to  draw  from  my  doctrine,  I 
complain,  and  affirm  that  in  this  he  has  done  me  and 
my  character  material  injustice. 

The  specifications  are  [1.]  That  I  deny  "  that  Christ 
.suffered  the  proper  penalty  of  llie  law."  [2.J  That  I 
deny  that  he  was  "  the  vicarious  substitute  of  his  peo- 
ple." [3.]  That  I  deny  that  he  "  took  away  legally 
their  sins."  [4.]  That  I  deny  that  "he  purchased 
pardon." 

I  shall  offer  a  few  remarks  on  each  of  these 
counts.  The  first  is,  that  I  deny  that  Christ  suf- 
fered the  proper  penalty  of  the  law.  In  my  notes  (p. 
89)  on  which  this  charge  is  based,  I  specify  precisely 
what  I  mean  by  this.  1  observe  there,  that  according 
to  my  view  of  penalty  there  are  certain  thmgs  inclu- 
ded in  the  penally  of  the  law  which  Christ  did  not, 
and  could  not  stiller.  I  specify  particularly  two  things 
[1.]  that  his  sufferings  were  not  eternal  j  [2.J  that  he 
did  not  endure  remorse  of  conscience.    Tltese  I  sup- 


APPENDIX.  91 

pose  to  have  been  a  part  of  the  proper  penalty  of  the 
law;  and  these  1  then  supposed  and  still  suppose, 
Christ  did  not  and  coidd  not  suH'er.  Thi.s  seemed  to 
me  to  he  so  plain  as  to  i)o  inilis|nual)le.  11' Ur.  Junkin 
maintains  that  Christ  did  endure  the  precise  penalty 
of  the  law,  then  lie  must  hold  one  of  two  thiri,'^s,  either 
that  Christ  did  endure  in  fact  eternal  sufferines,  and 
that  his  sulieriiiijs  vjerc  attended  wiih  remorse  of  con- 
science and  despair  ;  or  he  must  hold  that  the  eterni- 
ty of  sud'erin^.  and  remorse  of  conscience,  and  despair, 
are  no  part  of  the  proper  penalty  of  the  law.  II  he 
liolda  the  first  alternative,  then  he  mainiains  that 
which  is  evidently  contrary  to  truth.  Christ  did  not 
endure  eternal  sorrows,  nor  did  he  endure  remorse  of 
conscience.  Remorse  arises  from  the  consciousness 
of  personal  criminality:  but  Christ  was  holy,  harmless, 
and  undefiled.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  admit,  for  a  mo- 
ment that  his  mind  was  harassed  and  burdened  with 
any  conviction  of  past  crinnnality.  If  it  be  held  that 
remorse  of  consoience  and  eternity  of  sufferings  are 
not  a  part  of  the  penalty  of  the  lav/,  then  consequen- 
ce? will  follow,  all  of  which  I  have  not  time  to  specify. 
A  lev/  oidy  can  be  referred  to.  (I.)  A  vast  amount 
of  suffering:  has  been  introduced  by  transgression 
which  the  law  did  not  threaten,  and  which  it  did  not 
contemplate,  for  by  far  the  most  acute  and  dreadful 
part  ot  the  suti'erings  of  simiers  arises  from  remorse 
of  conscience,  and  the  apprehension  of  eternal  punish- 
ment. (2.)  If  the  law  did  notappoint  and  contemplate 
it,  it  is  unjust  to  inflict  it.  It  is  appointing  and  exe- 
cuting that  by  a  post-facto  regulation  which  is  a  de- 
parture from  all  just  views  of  punishment.  It  is  es- 
sential to  all  just  ideas  of  penalty  or  punishment,  that 
the  suffering  in  which  an  action  shall  involve  a  man 
shall  be  specified  beforehand,  and  the  subject  of  the 
government  be  apprized  of  it  by  a  reasonable  publica- 
tion of  the  penalty.  The  doctrine  that  a  magistrate 
may  introduce  into  his  sentence  forms  or  degrees  of 
sufiering  which  the  law  never  contemplated  and  made 
known  as  its  penalty,  is  the  very  definition  of  tyranny, 
and  would  jeopard  the  rights  and  liberties  of  all  men. 
(3.)  Eternal  death  according  to  this  view  is  no  proper 
penalty  of  the  law.  If  so,  it  wdl  be  unjust  to  inflict 
it,  and  if  unjust,  it  will  not  be  inflicted.  Unless  it  be 
admitted  that  the  eternity  of  punishment  was  contem- 
plated in  the  penalty,  it  would  violate  all  views  of  jus- 
tice that  it  should  be  inflicted,  and  the  doctrine  of 
universal  salvation  is  inevitable.  But  if  remorse  of 
conscience,  and  eternal  punishment  are  the  penalty  of 
the  law,  then  it  follows  that  Christ  did  not  endure 
that  strict  and  proper  penalty. 

My  defence  against  this  part  of  the  charge  is. 

1.  That  the  Bible  does  not  affirm  that  Christ  en- 
dured the  proper  penalty  of  the  law..  It  affirms  that 


92  APPENDIX. 

he  was  "  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  Bin 
of  the  world:  John  i.  29:  thai  he  save  himself  for  us, 
an  oHering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God,  Eph.  v.  2:  that  he 
is  the  pro|)itiaiion  for  ouroins.  1  John  ii.  2:  iv.  10:  that 
he  miide  liis  soul  an  oflering  for  ein,  lesa.  liii.  10:  that 
God  delivered  him  up  lor  us  all,  Rom.  viii.  32:  that  by 
him  we  have  received  the  atonement,  Rom.  v.  11: 
that  he  hue  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
being  made  a  curse  lor  us,  Gal.  iii.  13 — that  is,  being 
cursed  by  hanging  on  a  tree:  that  he  bare  our  sins  in 
his  own  body  on  the  tree,  1  Pet.  ii,  24;  &c.,  all  ol 
which  passages  prove  that  he  was  an  atoning  sacri- 
fice ;  that  he  died  in  our  stead  ;  that  he  was  a  vicari- 
ous oHcring,  and  I  hat  his  sufferings  were  efficacious 
/to  the  removal  of  the  penalty  from  us.  But  it  is  neither 
/  affirmed  that  he  endured  the  exact  penalty  of  the  law, 
\  nor  that  it  was  needful  that  he  should,  or  possible 
i  that  he  could  do  it.    His  suH'erings  were  strictly  and 

Eroperly  a  subslilute  lor  ihesuH'erings  of  sinners  who 
ut  for  his  atonement  would  have  died  forever.  And 
all  that  was  needful  was  that  the  same  good  should 
result  in  regard  to  the  law,  the  moral  character,  and 
the  government  ol  God,  which  would  have  resulted 
from  the  eternal  death  of  the  guilty  themselves, 
or,  in  other  words,  that  his  suil'erings  should  be  an 
equivalent  for  theirs. 

2.  That  the  Conlession  of  Faith  does  not  declare  it. 
It  indeed  (Q,ues.  Lar.  Cat.  49,)  says  that  he  felt  and 
bore  the  weight  of  God's  wrath  ;  but  this  must  be  a 
figurative  expression  denoting  that  he  endured  sor- 
rows that  were  the  proper  expression  of  the  wrath  of 
God  against  ein — and  this  I  do  not  deny.  Christ  was" 
innocent  and  holy;  God  was  well  pleased  with  his 
work  always,  even  when  he  died  ;  Mat.  iii.  17  ;  Luke 
ix.  33;  2  Pet.  i.  19;  John  xiii.  28:  and  it  would  be  lan- 
guage which  the  Scriptures  do  not  authorize,  and 
which  would  be  in  fact  blasphemy,  to  say  that  God 
was  angry  with  his  holy  Son.  The  framers  of  our 
confession  never  contemplated  such  a  statement  at* 
that;  and  if  not,  then  their  expression  cannot  mean 
that  Christ  endured  the  proper,  and  strict,  and  full 
penally  of  the  law. 

3.  It  was  impossible,  as  I  have  already  remarked, 
that  he  should  endure  that  proper  penalty.  It  was 
impossible  that  the  eternity  of  torment  should  be  en- 
dured in  a  limited  lime ;  impossible  that  he  should 
endure  remorse  of  conscience.  It  is  not  a  fact  that  he 
suffered  forever  ;  nor  is  it  a  fact  that  he  endured  re- 
morse of  conscience. 

4.  If  It  coiUd  have  been  ;  if  the  Messiah  could  have 
Buffered  a  literal  eternity  of  sufferinsrs,  yet  it  is  an 
abuse  of  language,  and  a  departure  from  all  the  just 
modes  of  speech  to  affirm  that  substituted  suHerings 
are  the  proper  penalty  ol  the  law.    Ou  this  point  we 


APPENDIX.  93 

meet  with  the  same  departure  from  tJie  proper  use  of 

liui^LUif^e,  to  which  I  have  iilready  adverted.  Perudty 

I  is  defined  to  be  "  the  suirerii)<f  in  person  or  property 

I  wliich  is  annexed  by  law,  or  judicial  decision  to  the 

'.commission  of  a  crime,  oilencc,  or  ireei)as3,  as  a  pun- 

|ishment."     Wtbster.    In  a  -penally  there  is  iriipiied, 

thereCore,  the  essential  idea  tliat  it  is  lor  the  corimws- 

sion  of  a  crime,  and  tiiat  it  is  properly  a  punishment. 

(Yet  Christ  had  neither  commiLted  crimes,  nor  was  he 
punished.    This  definition  is  in  accordance  with  the 
idea  of  punishmentvvhich  I  have  already  examined, 
and  is  in  strict  conibrmity  with  all  the  transactions  of 
I  men.  What  the  law  appoints,  and  what  is  determined 
■'by  the  magistrate  as  the  jjroper  expression  of  the  evil 
/  of  crime,  is  its  penalty  ;  and  it  is  alwa3^s  supposed  that 
f   this  is  based  on  the  commission  of  crime.    A  substi- 
•'    tute  may  pay  a  debt;  may  remove  a  penalty,  but  by 
no  propriety  of  lanj^uage  can  he  be  said  to  be  pun- 
ished. 

5.  If  Christ /ia(Z  endured  the  strict  penalty  of  the 
law,  then  the  law  would  have  no  claims  on  us  now. 
It  ihe  debt  was  fully  and  literall}^  paid,  and  aH  the 
penalty  removed,  they  for  whom  it  was  paid  have  a 
risht  to  a  discharge,  and  are  already  innocest  before 
God.  The  view,  therefore,  wliich  affirms  that  that 
penalty  is  truly  paid,  leads  at  once  to  all  the  evils  of 
Antinomianism.  It  is  that  view  on  which  was  based 
the  doctrine  of  eternal  juslificalion — the  very  essence 
of  antinomianiism.  If  the  full  penalty  of  the  law  has 
been  paid,  then  it  neither  has  now,  nor  ever  has  had, 
or  will  have  any  claim  on  those  for  whom  it.  has  been 
paid  ;  and  they  must  ever  have  been  regarded  as  jus- 
tified in  the  sight  of  God._  When  a  law  or  penalty  is 
fully  paid,  the  law  has  no  further  claims  on  men  ;  and  if 
the  full  penally  had  been  met  by  the  substitute  as 
really  and  truly  as  if  the  criminal  had  himself  borne 
it,  then  he  has  a  claim  to  a  discharge,  ai;d  his  release 
becomes  not  in  any  sense,  a  matter  of  grace  or  favor, 
but  a  matter  of  right.  It  would  not  be  riglit  that  he 
should  not  be  discharged.  And  this  too,  independent- 
ly of  any  change  in  him,  or  any  expres.¥ions  of  repent- 
ance, or  reformation  of  life.  All  that  is  needful  for 
him  in  this  view  is,  that  he  should  persuade  himself 

I  that  it  has  been  done,  and  he  will  urge  it  as  a  matter 
J  of^  claim  and  of  right.  The  influence  of  these  views 
'  in  former  times  is  well  known.  The  withering  and 
blighting  influence,  of  antinomianism  on  the  churches 
and  the  world  has  been  often  felt;  and  that  ert'ect  is 
one  proof,  at  least,  that  the  doctrine  is  not  in  the  Bi- 
ble. The  design  of  the.  Bible  is  to  make  men  holy  ; 
and  any  doctrine  that  leads  to  lax  notions  of  holiness, 
and  to  indulgence  in  sin,  is  prima  facie  evidence  that 
it  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures. 

6.  If  this  doctrine  be  true;  if  it  be  affirmed  tha^ 


94  APPENDIX. 

Christ  endured  the  literal,  complete,  and  proper  pe- 
nalty of  the  law,  then  it  follows  that  no  j?ain  has  re- 
sulted to  the  universe  from  his  intervention.  All  that 
has  been  done  has  been  to  transfer  the  penalty,  in- 
volvingf  the  same  kind  and  detfree  of  suffering,  from 
the  guilty  to  the  innocent.  Just  as  much  sunerin? 
has  been  endured  on  this  supposition  as  though  the 
elect  had  endured  it  in  their  own  persons  in  the  eter- 
nal fires  of  hell.  And  although  it  would  argue  great 
benevolence  in  him  who  consented  that  it  should  be 
transferred  to  himself,  yet  it  would  be  evidently  con- 
trary to  the  spirit,  and  general  drift  of  the  Scriptures. 
The  idea  is  there  every  where  presented  that  great_ 
advantage  or  gain  has  resulted  from  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  J  that  a  vast  amount  of  suffering  in  the  uni- 
rerse  has  been  prevented ;  that  there  will  be  vastly 
more  happiness  in  the  universe,  taken  as  a  whole,  in 
consequence  of  his  sufferings,  than  there  would  other- 
wise have  been  ;  and  that  his  intervention  and  sacrifice 
■  was  a  glorious  event,  not  only  as  evincing  benevolence 
but  as  actually  a  device  by  which  indescribable  woe 
might  be  prevented,  and  pain  and  despair  greatly  di- 
minished. See  Rom.  v.  29,  21.  Butil  the  precise  and 
literal  penalty  was  borne,  then  none  of  these  benefi- 
cial results  would  follow.  The  whole  work  can  then 
be  stated  in  few  words — that  an  infinite  amount  of 
sin,  and  wo,  and  despair  has  been  transferred  literally 
from  the  guilty  to  the  innocent ;  and  that  the  universes 
taken  as  a  whole,  has  endured  just  as  much  pain  and 
despair  as  if  no  atonement  had  been  made.  It  is  need- 
less to  say  that  this  view  of  the  atonement  greatly 
dims  its  moral  lustre  and  glory,  as  a  device  for  pre- 
venting the  existence  and  extension  of  woe  and  de- 
spair. 

7.  This  view  is  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of 
substituted  sufferings.    It  teaches  indeed  the  doctrine] 
of  a  substituted  person;  but  the  Bible  teaches  the 
■  doctrine  of  substituted  sufferings  ;  of  sufferings  which 
are  not  the  literal  and  proper  penalty  of  the  law,  but 
i  which  come  m  the  place  of  the  penalty,  and  which 
':  au"e  designed  to  answer  the  same  end.    His  "  blood," 
"•  that  is,  tiis  life,  his  sulferings,  is  thus  represented  as 
the  ransom  for  many.    He  redeemed  us  to  God  by  his 
blood,  i.  e.  by  his  substituted  sufferings.    He   is  set 
forth  as  the  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  i. 
e.  in  his  sufferings  substituted  in  the  place  of  sinnere. 
He   was    wounded  lor    our    transgression,     he  wa< 
bruised  for  our  iniquities,  and  withliis  stripes  are  we 
healed,  that  is,  his  sufferings  were  substituted  in  the 
place  of  ours,  and  were  designed  to  answer  the  same 
end.    "  Christ's  satisfaction,  and  the  merit  of  his 
whole  obedience,  is  as  t-ff'ectual  for  our  pardon,  justi- 
fication, and  salvation,  as  if  believers  themselves  had 
performed  it}  and  it  is  imputed  to  themj  in  that  it  was 


APPENDIX.  95 

done  for  their  Bakes,  and  snflered  in  their  etead,  and 
the  fruit  of  it  by  a  free  donation  given  to  them.  But, 
1.  God  is  not  mistaken,  to  judge  that  we  obeyed  or 
suffered  when  we  did  not.  2.  God  is  no  liar  to  say 
we  did  it,  when  he  knoweth  we  did  not.  3.  If  we  were 
not  the  actors  and  sufferers,  it  is  not  possible  that  we 
should  be  made  the  natural  subjects  of  the  accidents 
of  another's  body,  by  any  putation,  estimation,  or 
misjudging  whatsoever;  no  nor  by  any  rfottafion nei- 
ther, li  is  a  contradiction,  and  therelore  an  impossi- 
bility that  the  same  individual  actions  and  passions 
of  which  Christ's  human  nature  was  the  agent,  and 
subject  so  many  hundred  years  ago,  and  have  them- 
selves now  no  existence,  should  in  themselves,  1  say 
in  themselves  be  made  yours  now,  and  you  be  the  sub- 
ject ol  the  same  accidents.  4.  Therefore  they  can  be 
no  otherwise  given  to  us,  but,  1.  By  a  true  estimation 
of  the  reasons  why  Christ  underwent  them,  viz.  (or 
our  saked  as  aforesaid.  2.  And  by  a  donation  of  the 
effects  or  fruits  of  them,  viz.  pardoning,  and  justify- 
ing, and  saving  as  by  them  (on  the  terms  chosen  by 
the  donor  himself,  and  put  into  his  Testament,  or 
covenant)  as  certainly  (but  not  in  the  same  manner) 
as  if  we  had  done  and  suffered  them  ourselves,"  &c. 
&c.    Baxter  on  the  Ljle  of  Faith,  ch.  viii. 

When,  therefore,  I  denied  that  Christ  endured  the 
proper  penalty  of  the  law,  I  meant  simply  to  say,  that 
he  did  not  endure  its  literal  penalty — that  he  did  not 
endure  eternal  sufferings,  or  remorse  of  conscience 
or  despair.    I  did  not  mean  to  deny  that  he  was  an 
atoning  sacrifice;  nor  that  he  died  in  the  place  of  sin- 
ners ^  nor  that  his  sufferings  were  strictly  a  vicarious 
offering;  nor  that  the  law  was  honored  and  mag- 
nified ;  nor  that  his  death  was  an  equivalent  for  all 
the  sinner  would  himself  endure  if  he  was  lost.    Nor 
did  I  mean  to  deny  that  his  sufferings,  though  not 
/  strictly  a  punishment,  were  intended  as  an  expression 
{  of  the  hatred  which  God  has  to  sin.    I(  by  penal  ills 
^be  meant  such  sufferings  inflicted  by  a  moral  go- 
/  vernor  as  are  a  proper  expression  of  his  sense  of  the 
1  evil  of  transgression,  I  admit  and  hold  that  Christ  en- 
/  dured  such  ills.    I  do  not  believe  that  he  held  him  to 
)  be  guilty,  i.  e.  ill-deserving  and  criminal,  for  that  was 
\  impossible;  I  do  not  believe  that  he  should  be  repre- 
/  sented  as  "  guilty,"  for  the  Bible  does  not  use  that 
( term,  and  the  language  is  abhorrent  to  the  best  feel- 
'ings  of  the  Christian  heart;  but  1  do  believe  that  he 
■should  be  represented  as  dying  in  the  place  of  the 
guilty  ;  that  his  sufferings  were  vicarious  and  propi- 
tiatory; that  the  results  or  benefits  of  his  atonement 
are  freely  first  given  to  believers  by  God,  or  made 
over  to  them  so  that  on  their  account  they  are  par- 
doned and  justified,  and  that  they  are  so  reckoned  or 
imputed  to  them,  that  without  them  it  was  impossi< 


96  APPENDIX. 

ble  for  God  to  forgive  sin  ;  but  tliat  now  he  can  do  it 
in  perfect  consisteiiCy  with  liis  law,  and  perfections, 
and  the  stability  of  liis  moral  government.  I  have  no 
other  hope  of  eternal  life  than  that  which  is  ibunded 
on  his  i>ropitiatory  olleriiiff  in  my  stead;  I  have  no 
other  announcement  to  make  to  men,  than  that  this 
is  the  only  way  in  whicli  iliey  can  be  saved. 

The  stcond  t^pccificaiion  in  the  chaige  is,  that  I 
deny  that  Christ  "  was  the  vicarious  subsiitute  of  his 
people."  This  is  an  inference— n  most  unjust  one— 
of  Dr.  Junkiii.  In  liis  view  it  seemed  to  follow  that  if 
it  was  bcld  that  Christ  did  not  endure  the  proper  pe- 
nalty of  the  law,  it  would  follow  that  therefore  the 
doctrine  ot  his  vicarious  sacrifice  was  denied  also. 
Whether  the  inference  is  correct, is  not  now  the  ques- 
tion before  us.  It  is  whether  I  have  denied  that  Christ 
is  the  vicarious  substitute  of  his  people.  And  here  I 
protest  solemly  against  the  rii^ht  of  Dr.  Junkin  or  any 
other  man  to  draw  an  inference  from  my  statement, 
and  then  charge  me  with  holding  the  inference,  and 
for  that  of  being  guilty  of  heresy.  In  alf  communities, 
a  man  has  a  right  to  state  his  views,  wnd  to  be  re- 
garded as  holding  only  those  views,  and  not  to  be 
charged  with  holding  what  others  may  choose  to 
draw  from  them  by  way  of  inlerence.  It  has  been 
conceded  every  where,  that  a  man  is  not  to  be  charg- 
ed as  holding  that  which  to  others  may  seem  to  follow 
from  his  doctrine.  Even  where  such  inferences  may 
legitimately^  be  drawn,  they  are  not  to  be  charged  as 
his  belief— for  he  may  not  see  it,  or  may  expressly 
disavow  it;  and  he  is  to  be  held  as  answerable  only  for 
what  he  expressly  affirms.  Inferences  or  results  may 
be  drawn  to  show  what  his  opinions  may  lead  to,  and 
to  prove  that  they  are  erroneous;  but  to  charge  him 
with  holding  them  is  slander.  (3n  the  principle  in 
which  Dr.  Junkin  has  acted  in  this  charge,  all  that  is 
needful  to  overwhelm  a  man  with  the  disgrace  of 
holding  any  heretical  or  dangerous  opinion,  is  for 
some  man  to  draw  inferences  from  wlfat  he  has  stat- 
ed, to  follow  out  his  own  reason  or  fancy  into  conse- 
quences which  he  thiidis  follow  from  the  doctrines  ad- 
vanced; to  attack  any  error  or  false  opinion  as  a  con- 
sequence to  what  is  stated,  and  then  to  charge  the 
man  with  holding  that  result,  or  consequence.  In  this 
way  no  man's  character  would  be  sale.  Justice  would 
be  at  an  end.  All  kmds  and  forms  of  slander  would  be 
justified  ;  and  every  man  would  be  invited  to  make 
out  his  brother  to  be  a  heretic  or  a  dangerous  rnan. 
And  it  is  time  that  this  simple  principle  of  justice 
should  be  regarded — that  a  man  shall  be  held  to  be 
resronsible  only  for  what  \\&  statts  io  be  his  behef.  It 
is  time  that  every  Presbytery,  and  every  court  of  jus- 
tice, and  every  community  in  the  land,  should  rebuke 
with  no  ambiguous  or  uncertain  voice  the  reckless- 


AYPENDtx.  9T 

nfess  and  injustice,  and  cruelty  involved  in  the  habit 
of'drawing  wliat  inferences  Q.ny  nuin  pleases  from  the 
a'.ateinents  oC  another,  and  then  charcinj?  them  on 
him  as  his  belief.  The  authority  of  the  General  As- 
sembly has  once  at  least  been  brought  to  protect,  in 
this  way,  the  reputation  of  the  ministers  of  the  gos- 
peij  and  to  rebuke  the  spirit  involved  in  this  charge 
which  is  now  brousjht  against  me.  "  Here,"  say  they, 
"  it  will  be  important  to  remark,  that  a  man  cannot 
be  fairly  convicted  of  heresy,  lor  using  expressions 
which  may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  involve  heretical 
doctrines,  if  they  also  admit  of  a  more  favorable  con- 
struction. Because  no  one  can  tell  in  what  sense  an 
ambiguous  expression  is  used  but  the  speaker  or  wri- 
ter, and  he  has  a  ri^ht  to  explain  himself;  and  in  such 
cases,  candor  requires,  that  a  court  should  favor  the 
accused,  by  putting  on  his  words  the  more  faverable, 
rather  than  the  less  favorable  construction. 

"  Another  principle  is,  that  no  man  can  be  i-iehll'if 
convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or  implication  ;  that 
is,  we  must  not  charge  an  accused  person  with  hold- 
ing those  consequences  which  may  legitimately  flow 
from  his  assertions." — Minutes  of  the  Assembly,  vol. 
V.  p.  220.    I  will  just  add  here,  that  in  any  court  o 
justice,  an  action  of  slander  would  lie  against  the  au- 
thor of  this  charge.    It  is  a  mere  inference  of  his 
own;  it  is  wholly  unfounded;  it  is  fitted  most  deeply  to 
atTect  my  character  and  influence  as  a  minister  and 
as  a  man ;  and  I  call  upon  the  Presbytery  to  throw 
the  shield  of  justice  before  me,  and  to  vindicate  my 
character  from  this  deeply  injurious  charge. 
In  relation  to  this  specification,  I  declare  that  I  have 
^^^^'^.eve.r  denied  that  Christ  was  the  vicarious  substitute 
■^^I   of  his  people.    In  the  very  passage  under  considera- 
^^  ■''"tion,  I  have  taught  that  he  was   their  substitute  iii 
express  words.     "  In  the  plan  of  salvation,"  I   say, 
"  he  has  shown  a  regard  to  the  law  by  appointing  his 
Son  to  be  a  substitute  in  the  place  of  sinners."  p.  89. 
And  throughout  these  '  Notes,'  and  in  all   my  wri- 
tings. I  have  maintained  it  with  ail  the  talent' w'hich 
God  has  given  me,  and  with  a  constancy  that  neither 
in  fact  nor  in  form  has  ever  wavered.    With  no  slight 
degree  of  earnestness  do  I,  therefore,  complain  of  Dr. 
Junkin  for  charging  me  wuth  the  denial  of  a  doctrine 
which,  in  the  very  place  to  which  he  refers,  I  express- 
ly maintain. 
I  Would  observe  further,  that  the  views  which  I 
-Ijere  express  really  affirm  the  doctrine  of  substitution 
f  and  vicariousness  to  an  extent  much  greater  than 
\  can  be  held  by  those  who  maintain  that  Christ  endu- 
/   red  the  proper  penalty  of  the  law.    They  hold  to  a 
I   substituted  person  only,  and  to  literal  punishment ;  I 
/   hold  to  a  substituted  person,  and  substituted  suffer- 
\    ings,  retaining  the  idea  ol  vicariotis7iess,  or  sabstitu- 
\   tion  throughout  hie  entire  work. 
9 


98  APPENDIX. 

The  third  specification  under  this  charge  is,  that  I 
deny  that  Christ  "  took  away  legally"  the  "  sins"  of 
his  people.  This  is  also  an  inference  of  Dr.  Junkin.  I 
reply  to  this,  that  I  have  never  taught  it ;  nor  any 
thing  that  can  be  construed  into  this  accusation.  I 
have  always  taught  that  the  sins  of  christians  arer«- 
moved  by  the  work  of  Christ  legally  by  justification, 
and  really  by  sanctification. 

The  fourth  count  is,  that  I  deny  that  Christ  "  pur- 
chased" the  "pardon"  of  his  people.  This  is  also  an 
inference  j  and  this  I  have  not  denied.  1  have  so  re- 
peatedly, in  the  very  book  under  consideration,  stated 
that  the  blood  of  Christ  was  the  price  paid,  the  ground 
of  acceptance,  &c. :  that  it  is  matter  of  amazement 
that  the  author  of  these  charges  could  have  found  it 
possible,  in  his  head  or  liis  heart,  to  charge  me  with 
this  denial.  "  Christ  died  for  us.  In  our  stead  ;  to 
save  us  from  death.  He  took  our  place ;  and  by  dying 
himself  on  the  cross,  saved  us  from  dying  eternally  in 
hell."— p.  110.  "  By  his  blood.  By  his  death.  The 
fact  that  we  are  purcha.sed  by  his  blood,  and  sanctifi- 
ed by  it,  renders  us  sacred  in  the  eye  of  God  ;  bestows 
a  value  on  us  proportionate  to  the  worth  of  the  price 
of  our  redemption;  and  is  a  pledge  that  he  will  keep 
that  which  has  been  so  dearly  bought." — ib. 

"  Tridy  (Note  inch.  iii.  24).  it  does  not  mean  that 
it  [justification]  has  been  obtained,  however,  without 
any  price  or  merit  from  any  one,  for  the  Lord  Jesus 
has  PURCHASED  it  with  his  own  blood,  and  to  him  it 
becomes  a  matter  of  justice  that  those  who  were  giv- 
en to  him  should  be  justified." — p.  86.  "  Through 
the  redenij)tion,  «fcc.  The  word  here  used  occurs  but 
ten  times  in  the  New  Testament.  Its  root  (lutron) 
properly  denotes  the  price  which  is  paid  for  a  prison- 
er of  war;  the  ransom,  a  stipulated  purchase  money, 
which  being  paid,  the  captive  is  set  free.  The  word 
is  there  employed  to  denote  liberation  from  bondage, 
captivity,  or  evil  of  any  kind,  usually  keeping  up  the 
idea  of  a  price,  or  ransom  paid  in  consequence  of 
which  the  delivery  is  effected.  It  is  sometimes  used 
in  a  large  sense,  to  denote  simple  deliverance  by  any 
means  without  reference  to  a  price  paid,  as  in  Luke 
xxi.  28;  Rom.  viii.  23;  Eph.  i,  14.  That  this  is  not 
the  sense  here,  however,  is  apparent.  For  the  apos- 
tle in  the  next  verse  proceeds  to  specily  the  price 
which  has  been  paid,  or  the  means  by  which  the  re- 
demption has  been  effected.  The  word  here  denotes 
that  deliverance  from  sin  and  from,  the  evil  conse- 
quences of  sin  which  has  been  effected  by  the  offering 
of  Jesus  Christ  as  a  propitiation." — ib.  "  When 
the  blood  of  Christ  is  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  means  the  offering  of  his  life  as  a  sacrifice, 
or  his  death  as  an  expiation.  His  life  was  given  to 
make  atonement.  By  faith  in  his  death  as  a  sacrifice 
for  sin ;  by  believing  that  he  took  our  sins ;  that  he 


APPENDIX.  99 

tdied  in  our  place  ;  by  thus,  in  some  sense,  making  hia 
offering  ours;  by  approving  it,  loving  it,  embracing 
it,  trusting  it,  our  sins  become  pardoned,  and  our  sou^ 
made  pure." — p.  88.  After  these  plain,  positive,  and 
repeated  declarations  in  regard  to  my  belief  that  Christ 
purchased  the  pardon  of  his  people,  il  is  a  matter  of 
moat  dillicult  solution  lO  understand  why  Dr.  Junkia 
haa  accused  me  of  denying  it.  Can  it  be  that  he  has 
not  read  the  book  on  vviiich  he  bases  the.se  charges? 
or  can  it  be  that  his  mind  was  intent  on  finding  cer- 
tain things  held  or  denied  in  the  book  that  would  con- 
stitute the  foundation  of  serious  accusations  against  a 
minister  of  the  gospel  I  Would  it  be  possible  for  Dr. 
Junkin,  or  any  other  man,  to  frame  expressions  that 
more  positively  and  unequivocally  convey  the  idea 
that  Christ  did  "  purchase"  the  "pardon"  of  menl 
And  is  it  to  be  tolerated  in  the  churches  that  a  man 
may  frame  charges  ad  libitum  against  a  brother,  and 
proclaim  them  to  the  world  in  this  manner?  11  this  is 
done  Avho  is  safe  ?  And  where  is  there  a  man  whose 
character  can  stand  before  a  proceeding  of  this  kind, 
or  whose  reputation  is  secure  f 

On  the  whole,  I  regard  tke  three  last  specifications 
in  this  charge  as  deeply  injurious  to  my  character 
and  influence;  as  utterly  unfounded;  as  without  the 
shadow  or  semblance  of  proof;  and  complain  to  my 
peers  that  Dr.  Junkin  has  done  me  injustice — injus- 
tice which  should  be  repaired.  I  complain  of  the  loose 
and  inaccurate  manner  in  which  the  charge  is  couch- 
ed. I  complain  of  his  manner  of  drawing  inferences, 
and  then  charging  me  with  holding  them.  I  complain 
of  his  formally  charging  me  with  holding  opinions 
which  are  fitted  to  injure  my  character,  and  useful- 
ness, when  I  had  expressly  stated  the  reverse.  I  com- 
plain of  the  right  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel  to  accuse 
his  brother  in  a  matter  so  deeply  affecting  him  in  this 
loose,  inaccurate,  and  unfounded  manner. 
Charge  JX. 
•^.1   The  ninth  charge  is  in  the  following  words,  viz. 

"That  the  riffliteoueness,  L  e.  the  active  obedience  of  Christ 
to  ihe  law,  is  imputed  to  his  people  for  their  justification  ;  so 
that  they  are  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  and  therefore 
justified." 

Proofl.  p.  28.  (3.)  The  phrase  righteousness  of  God,  it 
equivalent  to  God's  plan  oj" justifying  men  ;  his  scheme  of  de- 
claring Ihem  just  in  the  sight  of  the  law ;  or  oj  acquitting 
them  from  punitkment,  and  admitting  them  to  favor.  In 
this  sense  it  stands  opposed  to  man's  plan  of  justification,  t.  e. 
by  his  own  wurks.  God's  plan  is  by  faith."  "  The  word  to 
justify,  dikaio,  means  properly  to  be  just,  to  be  innocent,  to 
he  righteous.  It  then  means  to  declare,  or  treat  as  righteous, 
as  when  a  man  is  charged  with  an  offence,  and  is  acquitted. 
If  the  crime  alleged  is  not  proved  against  him,  he  is  declared 
by  the  law  to  be  innocent.  Il  then  means  to  treat  as  if  inno- 
^eentf  to  regard  as  innocent ;  that  is,  to  pardon,  to  forgive,  and 


100  APPENDIX. 

consequently  to  treat  as  if  the  olTence  had  not  occurredF.  i-f 
does  not  mean  that  the  man  did  not  commit  the  oflence,  or 
that  the  law  might  not  have  held  him  answerable  for  it ;  but 
that  the  ofienceis  forgiven  ;  and  it  is  consistent  to  receive  the 
offender  into  favor,  and  treat  him  as  if  he  had  not  commit- 
ted it." 

"  In  regard  to  this  plan,  it  may  be  observed.  (1.)  That  i* 
not  to  declare  that  men  are  innocent  and  pure.  That  would 
not  Le  true.  The  truth  isjiist  the  reverse :  and  God  does  noi 
esteem  men  to  be  diJliireni  from  what  they  are.  (2.)  It  is  not 
to  talic  part  with  tiie  sinner,  and  to  niiiigatc  his  offences.  It 
admits  them  to  their  full  extent,  and  makes  liim  feel  them 
also.  (3.)  It  is  not  that  vy-e  become  partakers  of  the  essen- 
tial righteousness  of  God.  That  is  impossible.  (4.)  It  is  not' 
that /us  righteousness  becomes  ours.  This  is  not  true;  and 
there  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  whiclx  that  can  be  understood. 
But  it  is  God's  plan  tor  pardaning  sin,  and  tor  treating  us  as 
if  we  had  not  committed  it ;  that  is,  adopting  us  as  his  cliild- 
ren,  and  admitting  us  to  heaven,  on  the  ground  of  what  the 
Lord  Jesus  has  done  in  our  stead.  This  is  God's  plan.  Men 
seek  to  save  themselves  by  their  own  works.  God's  plan  is 
to  save  them  by  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Proof  2.  p.  84,  85.     ''  Kven  the  righteeusness  of  God.     The 
apostle,  having  stated  that  the  design  of   the  Gospel  was  to     '^ 
reveal  a  new  plan  of  becoming  just  in  the  sight  of   God,  pro-    '^ 
ceeds  here  more  fully  to  explain  it.     The  explanation  which  •• 
he  offers,  makes  it  plain  that  the  phrase  so  often  used  by  him, 
"  righteousness  of  Ciud,"  does  not  refer  to  an  attribute  of  God. 
but  to  bis  plan  of  making  men  righteous.     Pferelie  says,.that    . 

\it  is  by  laiih  in  Jesus  Christ ;,  but  suiely  an  attribute  of  Goci 
is  not  produced  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  It  means  God'f 
mode  of  regarding  men  as  righteous  through  their  belief  iA 
Jesus  Christ.  "God  has  promised  that  ihey  who  believe  in 
Christ,  shall  be  pardoned  and  saved.  This  is  his  plan  in 
distinction  from  the  plan  of  those  who  seek  to  be  justified  by 
works." 

"  Being  justijied. — Being  treated  as  if  righteous,  tliat  is^ 
being  regarded  and  treated  as  if  they  had  kepi  tlie  law.  The 
apostle  has  shown  that  they  eould  not  be  so  regarded  and 
treated  by  any  merit  of  their  own,  or  bit  personal  obedience 
to  the  law.  He  now  aflirms  that  if  they  were  so  treated,  it 
must  be  by  mere  favor,  and  as  a  matter,  not  of  right,  bu»  of 
gift.    This  is  the  essence  of  the  Gospel. 

'  Proof  3.  p.  94,  95,  as  quoted  under  charge  IV  (7)  and  p.  96. 
"God judges  things  as  they  are;  and  sinners  who  are  justi- 
fied, he  judges  not  as  if  they  were  puie.  or  as  if  they  had  a 
claim  I  but  tie  regards  tliem  aa  united  by  faith  to 'he  Lord 
^  Jesus,  and  in  this  relation  he  judges  thatlhey  should  belreated 
as  his  friends,  though  they  have  bccii,  are,  and  always  will  be 
personally  undeserving.  But  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Scripture.^ 
was,  that  the  entire  righteousness  of  Christ  was  set  over  to 
them,  was  really  and  truly  theirs,  and  was  transferred  to- 
them  in  any  sunse,  with  what  propriety  could  the  apostle  say, 
that  God  justified  the  ungodly '2  If  they  have  all  the  right-, 
eousness  of  Christ  as  their  own,  as  really  and  truly  theirs,  as 
if  they  had  wrought  it  out  themselves,  they  are  not  "  ungodly."^ 
They  are  eminently  pure  and  holy,  and  have  a  claim,  not  of 
(jrace,  but  of  debt,  to  the  very  highest  rewards  of  heaveo."  p. 


APPENDIX.  lOl 

t)7.  Unto'whom  God  imputelh  righteouanesa. — Whom  God 
treats  as  righteous,  or  as  entitled  to  his  favor  in  a  way  dif- 
ferent from  his  conformity  to  the  law.  This  is  found  in 
Psalms  xxxii.  And  ihe  whole  scope  and  design  of  the  Psalm 
is  to  show  the  blessedness  of  the  man  who  is  forgiven,  and 
whose  sins  are  not  charged  on  him,  but  who  is  freed  from  the 
punishment  due  to  his  sins.  Being  thus  pardoned,  he  is  treat- 
ed as  a  righteous  man." 

Proof  4.  p.  127.  By  the  obedience  of  one.— Of  Christ.  Thii 
stands  opposed  to  the  dinebcdience  of  Adam,  and  evidently 
includes  the  eniire  work  of  the  Redeemer  which  has  a  beanng 
on  the  salvation  of  men.  Phil.  ii.  8.  "He  -  -  -  -  bteame 
obedient  unto  death." 

P.  21.  "  Of  God! a  righteouaneas.  Not  of  the  personal 
holiness  of  God,  but  of  God^s  plan  oj  juatifying  m*n,  or  of 
declaring  them  righteous  by  faith  in  his  Son.  Here  God'« 
plan  stands  opposed  to  their  efforts  to  make  themselves 
righteous  by  their  own  works." 

How  irreconcileable  this  is  to  our  standards,  is  seen. 

Con.  XI.  i,  ii,  iii.    Lar.  Cat.  70,  71,  72,  Sh.  Cat.  33. 

On  this  charge,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  dwell. 
My  general  plea  is,  that  the  charge  is  not  sustained 
bv  the  passages  which  are  quoted  Irotn  my  book.  The 
charge  is,  that  I  have  denied  that  "  the  active  obedi- 
ence of  Christ  is  imputed  to  his  people  for  their  justi- 
fication;" and  is  foJlowed  by  an  inference  of  Dr.  Jun- 
kin  from  this,  that  I  also  deny  that  they  "  are  right- 
eous in  the  siirht  of  the  law,  and  therefore  justified." 
in  regard  to  this,  I  observe  (1.)  that  the  charge  is  not 
that  1  denied  that  the  benefits  of  the  work  of  Christ 
are  imputed  to  men,  or  that  they  were  justified  on  ac- 
count of  what  he  had  done.  So  explicit  were  my  re- 
peated declarations  on  the  subject,  that  it  was  not 
possible  to  allege  that  I  denied  this.  (2.)  I  have  not 
denied  that  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  is  imputed 
to  his  people.  1  have  affirmed  nothing  on  the  subject. 
1  have  not  any  where  in  my  book  reierred  to  the  dis- 
tinction between  his  active  and  passive  obedience. 
There  does  not  any  where  occur  an  expression  in  ra- 

Sardto  the  distinction  ;  and  of  course  there  can  be  no 
enial  of  the  doctrine.  And  I  confess  that  I  have  not 
thought  it  necessary  in  my  preaching,  or  in  my  wri- 
ting, to  refer  distinctly  to  that  distinction  which  is 
made  in  the  books  of  theology.  I  have  uniformly  re- 
presented the  doctrine  as  near  as  possible,  in  the  Ian-  - 
guage  of  the  Scriptures ;  that  it  was,  by  his  blood, 
his  obedience  unto  death,  his  merits,  his  atoning  sacri- 
fice, his  substituted  sufferings,  his  work  alone  that 
men  could  be  justified  and  saved.  I  have  alway* 
taught  that  men  have  no  merits  by  nature,  that  they 
have  done  nothing,  and  can  do  nothing  to  deserve  eter- 
nal life ;  that  they  are  lost  and  helpless  ard  ruined  j  and 
that  if  ever  saved  it  must  be  by  the  merits  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  alone.  And  that  this  has  been  the  strain 
of  ray  preaching,  I  may  appeal  boldly  to  all  who  ha\  e 


102  APPENDli. 

ever  heard  me,  and  to  aU  mj^.  writings.  No  mair  ercr 
heard  me  utter  a  sentiment  in  the  pulpit  or  elsewhere 
that  contravened  this  great  ceninii  triuh  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  no  man  can  find  in  any  oJmy  writings  an  ex- 
pression that  is  contrary  to  the  doctrine.  The  charge^ 
thereiore,  that  I  have  "  etenied  that  the  acti've  obedi- 
ence of  Christ  is  imputed,"  &c.  is  whoHy  gratuitotis 
and  unfounded.  It  is  neither  contained  in  the  pas- 
sages which  are  quoted  by  the  prosecutor  from  my 
book,  nor  is  it  to  be  found  any  where  in  what  I  have 
said  01  written.  (3.)  I  have  not  denied  that  his  peo- 
ple are  "  righteous  in  the  sight  of  the  law,  and  there- 
fore justified,"  This  is  another  oi  the  injurious  and 
imfounded  inferences  which  Dr.  Junki'n  has  felt  him- 
self at  liberty  to  charge  me  with  holding.  In  the  very 
yasdages  wliich  he  has  quoted^  1  have  affirmed  the 
very  contrary.  Thus  [p.  85 J  I  expressly  eay  that  they 
are  "  treated  as  if  righteous,  that  is,  are  regarded  and 
treated  as  if  they  had  kept  the  law."  And  thus  [p.  28] 
1  fsay,  of  the  plan  of  jusiificaiion  by  faith,  that  "  it  is 
God's  plan  (or  pardoning  sin,  and  for  treating  us  as  if 
we  had  not  committed  itv  that  is,  adopting  Ud  as  his 
fiiildren,  and  admitting  us.to  heaven,, on  the  ground 
of  what  the  Lord  Jesus  has  done  in  our  stead.  Mer» 
seek  to  save  themselves-  by  their  own  works  :  God's 
plan  is  to  save  them  by  liie  merits  of,  Jesus  Christ." 

4.  My  views  on  the  subject  of  justification  arc 
stated  often  in  the  Notes,  and  with  such  clearness,  I 
supposed,  that  their  meaning  could  not  be  mistaken- 
All  that  I  have  now  to  do,  is,  to  submit  those  views 
to  the  Presbytery,  as  bein^-,  so  far  as  appears  to  me, 
in  strict  accordance  with  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  the  Bible, 

Tims  on  p.  85,  I  say,  in  the  words  "  bein^  justiji- 
f ci  ;"  "  being  treated  as  if  righteous;  that  is,  being 
regarded  and  treated  as  if  ihey  had  kept  the  law." 
I  have  no  other  view  of  justification  than  that.  Again : 
p.  28.  "  The  phrase,  righteousness  of  God,  is  equiva- 
lent to  God's  plan  of  justifying  men  ;  his  scheme  of 
declaring  them  just  in  the  sight  ol  the  law)  or  of  ac- 
quitting them  from  punishnjent,  and  admitting  them 
to  favor.  In  this  sense,  it  stands  opposed  to.mon's 
pjan  of  justification,  i.  e.  by  his  ovvn  works'.  God's 
plan  is  by  failh.  The  way  in  which  that  is  done,  is 
revealed  in  the  gospel.  The  object  contemplated  to 
be  done,  is  to  treat  men  as  if  they  were  righteous. 
Man  attempted  to  accomplish  this  by  obedience  to 
the  law.  The  plan  of  God  was  to  arrive  at  it  by  faith. 
Here  the  two  schemes  difler  ;  and  the  great  design 
of  this  epistle  is,  to  show  that  man  cannot  be  justifi- 
ed on  his  own  plan,  that  is,  by  works;  and  that  the 
plan  of  God  is  the  only  way,  and  a  wise  and  glorious 
way,  of  making  man  just  in  the  eye  of  the  law,"  &c. 
Again:  p.  29.    "But  it  (the  plan  ol  justification  by 


«N 


APF.EMDIX.  103 

faith)  is  God's  plan  of.pardoning  sin,  and  for  treatinsf 
us  if  we  had  not  comn)iued  it;  that  is,  adopting  us  aa 
his  cliildren,  and  admitting  us  to  iieaven  on  the  ground 
of  what  the  Lord  Jesug  has  done  in  our  stead.    Thii 
is  God's  plan.    Men  eeekto  save  themselves  by  their 
own  works.    God's  plan  is  to  save  them  by  the  me- 
rits of.  Jesus   Christ."    Also,  pp.  90,  97,  95,213,  20. 
In  all  this,  I  suppose  that  the  good  principle  is  still 
,    maintained,  that  God  reckons  things   as  they  are, 
and  that  all  his  impulatiuns  are  avcordimj  to  truth, 
and  are  not  false.    Paul,  for  illustration,  was  justifi- 
\  ed  by  faith  in  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ.    God  did 
:  not  reckon,  or  impute,  that   Paul  was  put  to  death 
on  the  crops;  that  he  was, arraigned  and  mocked  ; 
that  /«>  hands  were  pierced,  and  his  temples  pressed 
with  the  crown  of  thorns,  and  that /i^  was  nailed  to 
N    the  tree.    So  to  iinj)ute,  or  reckon,  would  have  been 
;   contrary  to  historical  fact.     It  was  not  so,  and  could 
not  be  so  reckoned,  or  imputed.    But  God's  impula- 
'     tions  were  according  to  truth;  and  not  otherwise. 
•     [1-1  lie  reckoned  Paul  to  be  a  lost  and  ruined  sinner 
— undone,  and  helpless  ;  and  condemned,  in  the  sight 
of  justice  and  of  law.    He  im|juted  to  him  a  charae- 
j.     ter  which  rendered  salvation  by  his  own  doings  ira- 
\    possible ;  and  this   was  according:  to  truth.     [2.]  He 
'    reckopeu  or  judged  his  Son  to  be  a  sacrifice  in  the 
place  of  Paul.     Himself  innocent,  yet  he  was  willing 
,  to  die  to  redeem  him.     God  regarded  his  Son  aa 
j  such  a  sacrifice,  as  dying  to  make  atonement;  as 
/    rising, that  man  might  be  justified.    All  his  work  he 
regarded  or   reckoned  to  have  been  undertaken  and 
accomplished  in  the  place  of  sinners.     This   was  to 
reckon  the  thing  just  as  it  wr,s.    [3.]  Paul   was  ena- 
bled by  the  Holy   Spirit  to  repent,  and  believe  the 
gospel.    He  so  judged  of  him  as  a  penitent,  and  a  be- 
liever.   And  he  judged  tha,t  it  would  be  consistent  for 
him  to  pardon  and  save  a  penitent,  on  account  of 
what  Christ  had  done  in  his  stead.    The  law  had 
been  magnified  and  made  honorble.  Justice  had  been 
satisfied.     Theanger  of  God  had  been  appeased.    His 
own  character  would  be  regarded  as  pure ;  his  ha- 
tred of  sin  had  been  evinced;  his  authoriiy  would  be 
maintained,  and  his  mercy  manifest,  it  he  should  then 
forgive  him.    God  judged,  or  reckoned,  that  it  could 
be  done  consistently,  and  it  was  done  ;  and  the  judg- 
ment was  in  strict  accordance  with  truth.    [4.]  It 
was  consistent  for  God  to  treat  Paul  an  if  he  had  not 
sinned  ;  to  treat  him,  in  fact,  as  a  pardoned  and  jus- 
tifiedtman.    The  benefits,  or  results  of  the  work  of 
Christ  were  thus  made  available  to  his  pardon,  and 
acceptance  ;  and  were  thus  reckoned,   or  imputed  to 
him  in  the  eye  of  the  law.  so  that  he  could  be  consist- 
ently treated  in  this  manner.    All    God's    judicial 
reckonings  or   imputations   are   thus   according    to 


104  APPENDIX. 

truth,  or  88  things  actually  are.  He  reckons  nothinft 
falsely;  but  just  as  he  sees  them  to  be.  Truth  and 
justice  are  thus  maint  lined  ;  his  character  is  unsulli- 
ed; and   the  happiness  of  man  secure. 

A  chan<(e  has  been  made  in  the  "Notes,"  which 
removes  an  aiiibjo^uity  in  the  former  edition,  in  a  pas- 
sage which   failed    to    convey    my    meaning.     The 
change  occurs   on    p.  96,  where  the  Ibllowing  pas- 
sages have  been  substituted  for  those  which  there 
occur:  viz. 
/■     P.  96.    "It  is  not  meant  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  ia 
/    transferred  lo   them,  so  as  to  become  personally  meirs— for 
\    moral  character  cannot  be  transferred ; — nor  that  it  ie  infused 
I   into  them,    making  them  personally   meritorious — for  then 
\^  they  could  not  be  spoken  ot  as  ungodly  ;  but  that  Christ  died 
•  in  their  stead,  to  atone  for  their  sins,  and  is  regaided  and 
esteemed  by  God  to  have  died  ;  and  that  the  results  or  bene- 
fits of  his  death  are  so  reckoned  ei  imputed  to  believers,  as  to 
make  it  proper  for  God  to  regard  and  treat  them  as  if  thi  y  had 
themselves  obeyed  the  law;    that  is,    as  righteous  in  his 
sight." 

Charge  X. 
The  tenth  charge  is  in  the  following  words :  viz. 
•'  Mr.  Barnes  also  teaches,  in  opposition  to  the  standards, 
that  justification  is  simply  pardon. 

Proof  1,  pp.  2y,  29  (already  quoted).  "The  phrase  rig-^i- 
cousness  of  God  is  equivalent  to  God's  plan  of  justifying 
men  ;  his  schtne  of  dtclaring  them  just  in  the  sight  of  the 
law ;  or  of  acquiiting  them  from  punishment,  and  admitting 
them,  to  favor." 

2.  "  in  regard  to  this  plan,  it  may  be  observed,  (4.)  It  is 
not  that  Afi- righteousness  becomes  ours.  This  is  not  true ; 
and  there  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  which  that  can  be  under- 
stood. But  ii  is  God's  plan  for  pardoning  sin,  and  for  treat- 
ing us  as  if  we  had  not  committed  it." 

3.  p.  110.  '■^  Being  now  justified.  Pardoned;  accepted  as 
his  friends." 

4.  p.  124.  "  Unto  justification.  The  work  of  Christ  is  de- 
signed to  have  relerence  to  many  offences,  so  as  to  produce 
pardon  or  justificntion  in  regard  to  them  all."  The  comment 
on  chap.  v.  19.  "  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many 
were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one,  shall  many 
be  made  righteous,"  is  thus  summed  up,  p.  127,  128.  "  The 
sense  of  the  verse  is  this;  'As  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of 
one,  the  many  became  sinners,  without  explaining  tho  mode 
in  which  it  is  done;  so  the  many  became  righteous  in  the 
mode  and  on  the  terms  which  arc  explained  J  Righteous. 
Justified.    Free  from  condemnation.'  " 

5.  p.  182.  "  It  is  God  that  juslifieth.  That  is,  who  has 
pardoned  them,  and  admitted  them  to  his  favor;  and  pro- 
nounced iht:m  just  in  his  sight." 

6.  p.  217.  "  riie  moment  a  sinner  believes,  therefore,  he  is 
justified;  his  sins  are  pardoned;  and  he  is  introduced  into 
the  favor  of  God." 

The  inconsistency  of  this  with  Standards  is  evident.  Con. 
XI.  i.  ii.  lii.  Lar.  Cat.  70,  71,  72,  Sh.  33.  See  Scripturw 
quoted.under  IX.  and  Rom.  vL  16—18,  19.    1  Pel.  i.  14-22. 


APPENDIX  r03 

In  regard  to  tliiai  charge,  I  have  few  wordu  to  ofler. 
My  general  reply  is,  that  1  have  woMaught  what  is 
here  charged  on  me,  but  the  very  reverse.  So  far 
irom  teaching  that  justification  is  merely  pardon,  I 
liave,  in  the  very  passages  under  cotiBiileration, 
taught  that  God  regards  and  treats  the  sinner  who 
believes  in  Christ  as_  il  he  was  rigiileous,  and  that 
solely  on  account  of  the  merits*  ofChrict,  irrct^peclive 
ofany  good  deeds,  or  desert  ofthe  sinner,  whatsoever,, 
The  main  dili'ei once  between  patihm  and  justifiea- 
tion,  I  have  supposed,  respects  the  sinner  contempla- 
ted in  respect  to  his  past  conduct,  or  to  God's  future 
dealings  with  him.  Pardon  is  a  free  forgivenee^s  ol 
past  onences.  It  simply  has  reference  to  those  sins  as 
forgiven,  and  blotted  out.  It  is  an  act  o(  remission  on 
tlie  part  of  God.  Justification  has  respect  to  the  law, 
and  to  God's  \>\iy\)Oscs  oi' fuliLre  treaivient.  It  is  an. 
act  by  which  the  sinner  becomes  righteous  in  the 
sight  of  the  law  ;  or  by  which  God  determines  to 
treat  him  hereafter  as  a  righteous  man,  or  as  if  he 
had  not  sinned.  It  is  true  iha,t  pardon,  in  the  divine 
arrangement,  implies  ju.«tification  as  certainl);  to  ex- 
ist. But  it  is  because  God  has  so  arranged  it ;  and 
not  because  pardon  is  the  same  thing  as  justification. 
Thus  under  the  English  law,  in  the  case  of  treason, 
where  the  blood  is  corrupted  by  attainder,  the  cor-, 
ruption  is  of  such  a  character  that  a  mere  act  of  par. . 
ikin  cannot  fully  remove  it,  but  ii  can  be  "absolutely, 
salved  and  restored  but  by  act  of  Parliament."  "And 
it  is  a  general  rule,  that  having  respect  to  all  those 
whose  blood  was  corrupted  at  the  time  of  the  attain- 
der, the  pardon  doth  not  remove  the  corruption  of 
blood  neither  upward  nor  downward."  III.  Coke 
upon  Littleton,  pp.  614,  615.  in  like  manner,  in  re- 
gard to  the  case  of  a  rebel  against  heaven,  a. pardon 
has  reference  to  past  offences,  but  there  is  need,  of 
the  solemn  act  of  God,  resolving  that  ai/ the  eti'ects 
of  hissin  shall  be  removed,  and  tliat  he  shall  be  hence- 
forward treated  as  if  he  had  not  fallen ;  that  is,  be 
wholly  restored  to  favor,  and  adopted  as  his  child. 
On  this  charge,  I  have  not  taught  the  doctrine  with 
which  I  am  accused  ;  nor  do  the  passages  alleged 
prove  It.  In  the  very  passages  adduced  by  the  pro- 
secutor on  this  charge,  I  have  taught  thai  God  ad  s 
mits  the  sinner  to  favor,  and  treats  him  as  if  he  had 
not  sinned,  or  were  righteous. 

Lam  now  through  with  the  consideration  of  these, 
wearisome  and  troublesome  charges.  I  rejoice  that 
J  am  drawing  near  the  conclusion  of  this  trial,  and 
that  I  can  commit  the  cause  to  my  Presbytery.  I 
have  gone  over  the  charges  at  length.  A  part  of  the 
doctrines  charged  on  me  I  do  hold  ;  but  have  endear 
vored  to  show  that  they  are  neither  contrary  to  tlie 
Bible,  nor  to  tlip  Coafeesiort  of  Eaith.    A  part^of, 


106  APPENDIX. 

them  I  do  not  hold  ;  the  passages  which  have  been 
adduced  from  my  book  to  prove  them,  1  have  shown 
do  not  prove  them  ;  and  I  reject  them  with  as  deep 
abhorrence  as  my  prosecutor  can  do.  A  part  of  them 
are  inferences  which  the  prosecutor  has  drawn  from 
what  he  has  conceived  to  be  my  meaning,  and  which, 
in  violation,  as  it  seems  to  me,  of  all  the  principles  of 
equity,  he  has  accused  me  of  holding.  A  large  part 
ol  the  charges  pertain  to  abstract  and  metaphysical 
subjects,  which  do  not  aHect  the  vitality  of  Christian 
doctrine,  which  are  unintellif^ible,  or  uninteresting  lo 
the  great  mass  of  men  ;  and  m  which  men  may  differ, 
and  yet  hold  to  the  great  facts  of  the  Christian  reve- 
lation. None  o(  the  points  on  which  1  differ  from  the 
prosecutor,  can  be  regarded  as  fundamental ;  and,  on 
all  of  them,  difference  of  opinion  has  been  allowed 
hitherto  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 

In  reference  to  these  charges,  the  Presbytery  ia 
now  to  give  their  verdict.  While  I  am  accused  in  this 
manner,  1  beg  that  it  will  be  borne  in  mind,  that  on 
the  great  and  vital  doctrines  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, even  my  prosecutor  has  dared  to  frame  no  ac- 
cusation. While  I  am  arraigned  on  these  charges, 
not  aflecting  the  vitality  of  Christian  doctrine,  not  a 
charge  has  been  brought,  and  not  a  syllable  ha.s  lall- 
en  from  his  lips,  that  I  am  suspected  of  unsoundness 
or  heresy,  in  regard  to  the  divine  origin,  and  plenary 
inspiration  o(  the  Holy  Scriptures;  to  the  unity,  spi- 
rituality, and  perfections  of  Grod  ;  to  the  nature  of  his 
moral  government,  and  the  claims  and  equity  of  his 
law  ;  to  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ ;  to  the  tact  that 
he  made  an  atonement  for  sinners  ;  that  he  died  and 
rose  from  the  (.ead  and  ascended  to  heaven  ;  to  the 
doctrine,  that  man  is^  fallen,  lost,  corrupted,  and  to- 
tally ruined  in  himself;  that  he  is  entirely  depraved, 
and  is  condemned  by  the  law  ;  to  the  necessity  of  a 
change  of  heart,  radical,  and  entire,  and  totally 
transforming ;  to  the  doctrine  that  this  is  produced 
solely  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  it 
never  is,  nor  can  be  accomplished  but  by  him  ;  to  the 
doctrine  that  man' is  justified  by  the  merits  solely  of 
the  Lord  Jesus;  to  the  doctrme  that  God  is  a  sov^e- 
reign,  and  bestows  his  blessings  when  and  vvhere  fie 
pleases;  that  he  has  a  plan  that  is  good  and  wise, 
and  that  men  are  saved  according  to  his  eternal  coun- 
sels, and  his  electing  love;  to  the  doctrine  that 
Christians  should  lead  a  holy  life,  and  should  culti- 
vate a  spirit  of  humility,  and  love,  and  purity,  and 
prayer  ;  to  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  ol  the 
saints,  and  to  the  great  truth  that  the  righteous  shall 
be  saved  forever,  and  wicked  destroyea  eternally  in 
h«ll.  Now,  on  these,  and  the  great  kmdred  doctrines 
of  religion,  my  prosecutor  has  alleged  in  me  no  de- 
parture from  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 


APPENDIX.  107 

On  minor  points,  on  points  of  metaphysical  difference 
and  speculfition,  he  has  arraigned  me,  has  sought  to 
embarrass  me,  and  has  spread  my  name  abroad  as 
charged  with  heresy,  and  ac  unworthy  the  confidence 
ol'the  churches  of  the  Redeemer. 

Having  gone  through  wiilian  examination  of  these 
charges,  at  s-uch  length,  I  now  commit  the  cause  to 
my  Presbytery.  My  happiness,  my  usefulness,  my 
peace,  and  my  reputation,  are  in  no  small  degree  in 
your  hands.  I  commit  the  cause  with  confidence  to 
my  brethren,  and  to  God,  not  doubting  that  justice 
will  be  done.  Deeply  affected  as  all  my  in'.erests 
must  be  in  this  decision,  I  have  no  apprehension  as  to 
the  result  of  this  investigation;  for  1  have  shown,  I 
think,  thai  I  hold  no  doctrines  contrary  to  the  holy 
Scriptures ;  that  I  accord  with  the  great,  main,  and 
essential  truths  slated  in  the  Confession  which  we 
all  have  professed  to  receive;  and  that  where  the 
prosecutor  and  myself  differ  in  opinion,  it  is  only  in 
ihose  abstruse  and  metaphysical  points  which  in  all 
ages  have  been  considered  debateable  ground,  which 
do  not  affect  the  vitality  of  Christian  doctrine ;  on 
which  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States, 
always  imbued  hitherto  with  a  large  and  catholic 
epirit,  has  iiilowed  its  ministers  and  members  to  dif- 
fer ;  and  in  reference  to  which  they  may  differ,  and 
still  be  the  warm  friends  of  truth  and  order  ;  the  ad- 
vocates of  revivals  o(  religion  ;  and  fellow  laborers  in 
the  great  work  of  bearing  the  gospel  around  the 
world. 

I  have  only  to  add,  that  I  cherish  no  unkind  feel- 
ings towards  my  prosecutor.  I  charge  on  him  no  im- 
proper motives.  1  accuse  him  of  no  unchristian  or 
vindictive  spirit.  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he 
has,  in  all  this  proceeding,  been  actuated  by  consci- 
entious motives.  I  delight  to  add  my  humble  testi- 
mony, in  accordance  with  the  feelings  of  all  who  have 
witnessed  this  trial,  to  his  Christian  spirit ;  and  re- 
joice to  close,  by  saying  that  my  conviction  of  the 
piety,  and  the  Christian  temper  of  my  prosecu- 
tor, has  been  augmenting  throughout  the  entire  pro- 
fiecution.  With  these  remarks,  I  submit  the  cause 
to  the  Presbytery;  and  these  documents,  to  be  pre- 
served, with  the  consent  rf  ilf  Pre  ^ytery,  as  a 
part  of  their  records,  as  the  e  vidcxjce  wluch  1  adduce 
on  my  part,  and  as  my  defence. 

Albert  Barnes. 


THE  APPEAL 


OF 


MR.  BARNES. 


Philadelphia,  Nov.  10,  1835. 

To  the  Rev.    William  M  £ngles, 

Mudereilor  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia : 

Rev.  Sir,— You  are  hereby  otficially  inlbrmed  that 
I  intend  to  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Ameri- 
ca, to  meet  in  the  city  of  Pittsburg,  on  the  third 
Thursday  of  May,  1836,  from  the  decision  of  the  Sy- 
nod of  Philadelphia,  made  at  their  session  in  York, 
in  my  case,  and  to  complain  ol  iheir  doing:8  in  regard 
to  the  same.  The  appeal  is  from  the  definite  sen- 
tence suspending  me  Irom  "  the  exercise  of  all  the 
functions  proper  to  the  gospel  ministry,"  and  the 
Complaint  and  appeal  relate  to  the  various  steps  by 
which  the  Synod  were  led  to  the  sentence  which  the/ 
have  passed.  The  general  grounds  ol  the  appeal  and 
complaint,  are  those  which  are  stated  in  our  Book  of 
Discipline,  [ch.  vii.  s^  iii.  sub.  sect.  3j,  to  wit:  "  irre- 
gularity in  the  proceedings  of  the  inferior  judica- 
tory;"  "a  refusal  of  reasonable  indulgence  ;"  "  de- 
clining to  receive  important  testimony ;"  "hurrying 
to  a  decision  before  the  testimony  was  fully  before 

hem  ;"  "  a  manifestation  of  prejudice  in  the  case," 

nd  "  injustice  in  the  decision." 
In  particular,  I  appeal  from  this  decision, 
1.  Because  the  Synod  proceeded  to  try  and  issue 
the  case  in  express  violation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States.  The 
Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  exercise,  as 
they  judged,  of  their  constitutional  rights,  had  laid  in 
a  plea  against  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Synod  over  any 
cause  which  had  been  before  them  prior  to  the  28th 
day  of  October,  1835,  when,  by  the  act  of  the  Assem- 
bly, the  two  Synods  were  to  be  united;  and  had  re- 
solved, in  connection  with  each  ol"  the  other  Presby- 
teries of  the  late  Svnod  of  Delaware,   to  withhold 

heir  records  from  the  Synod  of  Philadel  phia.  The 
Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  expressly 
declares,  that  in  conducting  an  appeal,  the  third  step 
chall  be,  "  to  read  the  whole  record  of  the  proceed- 


THE  APPEAL  Of  109 

ings  of  tlic  inferior  judicatory  in  the  case,  includingf  all 
the  testimony,  and  the  reasons  of  their  decision:'" 
Book  of  Disciphne,  oh.  vii.  §  iii.  sub.  sect,  viii.  Yet, 
although  those  records  were  not  in  full  before  the 
Synod,  and  could  not  be  obtained,  tiic  Synod  re- 
solved to  proceed  and  issue  the  case  without.  Ofthis 
I  complain,  as  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  ol  the 
Presbyterian  Church;  as  contrary  to  the  uniform 
proceedings  in  all  ecclesiastical  courts;  as  contrary 
to  the  proceedings  in  all  courts  of  justice;  and  an 
manifestly  unjust,  and  leading  to  an  erroneous  deci- 
sion; as  depriving  me  of  a  right  which  all  persons 
have  in  a  trial  of  appeal,  that  the  whole  record  of  the 
court  below,  and  the  reasons  ol"  its  decisions  should  be 
fairly  placed  before  the  superior  judicatory.  I  com- 
plain of  it,  because,  if  this  were  acted  on  every  where, 
the  interests  of  no  man  Avould  be  safe,  and  the 
cause  of  justice,  and  of  right,  would  be  every  where 
violated. 

2.  Because  the  Synod  proceeded  to  '  authenticate' 
by  parole  testimony,  certain  papers  which  were  said 
by  the  prosecutor  to  be  a  part  of  the  records  of  the 
Presbytery  in  the  case.  Of  this  1  complain,  and  from 
the  decision  to  do  this  1  appeal,  because  it  is  unknown 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  and 
a  departure  from  its  express  provisions  :  and  because 
it  was  not  even  pretended  that  tlie  whole  of  the  records 
of  the  Presbytery  were  produced  by  the  prosecutor, 
and  authenticated  by  the  testimony  of  the  single  wit- 
ness who  was  examined. 

3.  Because  it  Avas  in  evidence  before  the  Synod  on 
the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Steel,  that  in  the  trial 
before  the  Presbytery,  I  did  adduce  passages  from  my 
book,  which  he  understood  to  be  evidence  designed  to 
rebut  that  which  was  adduced  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Junkin. 
That  evidence  was  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  Pres- 
bytery ;  and  this  evidence,  with  my  explanation  and 
defence,  went  materially,  as  I  have  reason  to  believe, 
to  produce  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  acquitting 
me  from  holding  dangerous  errors.  Yet  while  the 
Synod  were  apprised  by  the  witness  before  them  that 
this  was  the  fact,  and  while  it  must  have  been  mani- 
fest that  injustice  would  be  done  without  the  evidence 
and  defence,  they  proceeded  as  if  it  had  had  no  exis- 
tence. 

4.  Because  the  Synod  heard  but  one  party  in  the 
(rial  of  the  appeal.  The  Book  of  Discipline  [ch.  vil.  § 
iii.  sub.  sect,  viii.]  expressly  declares  that  ihe  fourth 
Ktep  shall  be,  "to  hear  the  original  parties."  Yet 
hut  one  party  was  heard.  After  I  had  expressed  in 
writing,  in  a  respectful  manner,  the  reasons  why  I 
could  not  appear  before  them,  and  submit  to  a  trial 
Tvhile  the  records  of  the  Presbytery  were  wanting,  the 

10 


110  MR.     BARNES. 

Synodinevertheleas  proceeded  to  hear  my  accu.=er  at 
length  ;  and  him  only.  They  issued  the  case  without 
any  of  the  evidence  which  I  had  adduced  in  the  court 
below;  without  any  defence  on  my  part ;  without  hav- 
ino^  heard  the  '  original  parties  ;'  and  wholly  on  ex 
par/e  testimony,  and  e.r  pa/'^e  argument.  Of  lliis  I 
complain  as  a  violation  otthe  Constitution,  and  of  the 
rights  and  privileges  which  every  man  has  in  a  land 
offreedom  and  equity  ;  and  especially  of  the  rights 
which  are  guaranteed  to  every  man  by  the  principles 
of  common  justice,  and  by  the  word  of  God.  Though 
I  had  said  before  the  Synod  that  so  far  as  I  was  per- 
sonally concerned,  I  was  prepared  for  trial:  though  I 
had  expressed  a  willingness  to  be  tried  by  any  compe- 
tant  tribunal ;  and  though,  without  injustice  to  any 
of  the  parties,  the  whole  subject  might  have  been  re- 
lerred  to  the  General  Assembly  ;  yet  the  Synod  pro- 
ceeded to  issue  the  case  in  a  manner  that  evidently 
must  lead  to  a  partial  and  unjust  decision,  and  in  a 
manner  that  violates  all  the  rights  which  God  has 
given  me  as  a  Christian,  as  a  minister,  and  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  community. 

5.  Because,  in  express  violation  of  the  constitution, 
the  Synod  proceeded  to  issue  the  case  without  ha- 
ving heard  the  members  of  the  Presbytery  in  defence 
of  their  decision.  The  Book  ef  Discipline  (ch.  vii.  §iii. 
sub.  sect,  viii.)  expre.-sly  ordains  that  the  fifth  step  in 
conducting  an  appeal  shall  be  to  "  hear  any  of  the 
members  of  the  inferior  judicatory  in  explanation  ot 
their  decision,  or  ot"  their  dissent  from  it."  The 
Pre.sbytery  had  formally,  and  in  writing,  objected  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Synod  in  this  case,  and  in  all 
cases  before  them  prior  to  the  28th  day  of  October, 
1835.  Whatever  might  be  the  propriety,  or  impropri- 
ety of  this  plea,  it  was  such  that  they  could  not  ap- 
pear before  the  Synod  in  defence  of  their  decision, 
and  they  were  not  in  fact  heard.  Of  the  course  pur- 
sued by  the  Synod  in  proceeding  to  issue  the  case 
without  their  haying  been  heard,  I  complain,  not  only 
as  in  violation  of  the  constitution,  but  as  deciding  the 
case  when  I  was  deprived  of  the  benefit  which  must 
have  resulted  had  they  stated  to  the  Synod  the  rea- 
sons of  their  decision.  The  grounds  on  which  they 
acted ;  the  evidence  which  Avent  to  influence  their 
minds  in  acquitting  me ;  the  considerations  which 
led  to  their  decision,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  would  have 
constituted  a  material  argument  in  my  lavor  in  influ- 
encing the  minds  of  the  Synod  in  the  case.  It  ia  a 
right  which  an  accused  man  has,  under  our  church 
government,  that  the  judicatory  that  has  acquitted 
him  from  charges  materially  all'ecting  his  character, 
his  influence,  his  peace,  and  his  usefulness,  should  be 
heard  in  defence  of  their  decision.    But  the  Synod 


THE    APPEAL    OF  III 

proceeded  to  issue  this  cause  when  I  was  deprived  of 
even  this  defence ;  when  I  had  nciilier  the  advan- 
tage of  defending  my  own  sentiments,  nor  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  deience  of  those  who,  hefore  their  own 
bar,  had  heard  meat  great  length,  when  confronted 
with  my  accuser,  and  when  the  whole  testimony  was 
before  them. 

6.  Because  the  Synod  proceeded  to  i-ssuc  the  case 
in  this  unconstitutional  manner,  when  I  had  informed 
them,  that,  in  order  to  silence  the  alarms,  and  re- 
move the  apprehensions  of  my  brethren  in  regard  to 
certain  expressions  and  passages  in  my  'Notes  on 
the  Romans,'  I  had  carefully  revised  the  book,  had 
endeavored,  as  far  as  practicable,  to  remove  the  ex- 
ceptionable expressions,  had  changed  the  phraseolo- 
gy which  had  been  objected  to,  where  it  was  ambigu- 
ous, or  where  it  had  been  misunderstood,  or  did  not 
fully  and  clearly  expresss  my  meaning  ;  and  had  thus 
endeavored  to  do  all  that  I  cuidd  do  to  promote  the 
peace  and  harmony  of  the  churches.  Though  I  ad- 
mit that  the  trial  strictly  must  have  been  on  the  . 
book  as  it  was  at  first  published,  yet  I  humbly  con- 
ceive that  it  was  a  privilege  which  should  liave  been 
conceded  by  Cliristian  men  to  an  accused  brother, 
that  those  alterations  should  have  been  examined, 
and  if  such  as  to  remove  all  reasonable  grounds  of 
offence,  that  they  should  have  been  allowed  to  influ- 
ence the  decision.  All  that  can  be  asked  of  a  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel  who  is  charged  with  error,  is,  that 
he  should  remove  all  reasonable  grounds  of  offence  ; 
and  in  a  trial  that  must  materially  affect  his  cliarac- 
ter  and  influence,  this  indulgence,  before  a  Christian 
tribunal,  should  not  be  denied.  Yet  while  the  Synod 
were  apprised  of  my  desire  to  do  this,  tiiey  proceed- 
ed to  decide  the  case  without  reference  to  any  such 
effort  on  my  part,  and  as  if  no  such  changes  had  been 
made.  Of  this  I  complain,  as  manifesting  prejudice 
in  the  case,  and  as  evincing  a  disposition  to  pass  a 
sentence  whether  the  accused  was,  or  was  not  heard; 
and  whether  he  was  or  was  not  willing  to  make  any 
effort  to  allay  die  apprehension  of  his  fathers  and 
brethren.  Most  conscientiously  did  I  believe  that  I 
had  done  all  that  could  be  reasonably  required  of  me 
to  silence  the  voice  of  alarm;  and  I  complain  that 
this  my  effort  was  disregarded,  and  that  the  reason- 
able indulgence  which  every  man  has  a  right  to  ex- 
pect, was  not  allowed  me. 

7.  I  appeal  and  complain  because  of  injustice  in  the 
decision.  This  injustice  consists,  in  part,  in  attribu- 
ting to  me  sentiments  and  doctrines  which  I  have  not 
taught,  and  which  I  do  not  hold ;  and  in  part,  in  con- 
<iemning  as  erroneous  those  doctrines  which  I  have 
taught,  but  which  are  in  accordance  with  the  Bible, 


112  MR.    BARNES. 

and  with  the  Confession  of  Faith.  As  this  is  the 
principal  ground  on  which  I  appeal  to  the  General 
Assembly,  it  is  necessary  to  state  more  particularly 
wherein  the  error  and  injustice  of  the  decision  of  the 
Synod  consist. 

[  Jlr.  B.  tljcn  proceeds  to  state  very  briefly  the  reasons  of 
his  complaint  in  relation  to  each  of  the  ten  charges,  as 
tiiese  reasons  arc  mcrel}'  a  summary  of  his  defence,  which 
^^.^c  have  published  entire,  we  omit  them  liere.] 

Because,  therefore,  on  the  whole  charges,  the  prose- 
cutor has  accused  me  either  of  heresy  in  holsiing  doc- 
trines which  are  in  accordance  with  the  Bible  and  the 
standards,  or  of  holding  doctrines  which  I  do  not  hold, 
and  which  I  have  not  tanijht ;  because  the  Synod  have 
united  with  him  in  giving  currency,  publicity,  and  per- 
manency to  these  injurious  charges ;  because  its  whole 
influence  and  power  has  thus  been  employed  to  blast 
my  reputation,  to  injure  my  usefulness,  and  to  close 
Riy  ministry;  and  because  this  was  done  in  violation 
of  the  constitution,  and  of  the  great  principle  guaran- 
teed to  us  by  the  God  of  nature,  by  the  Bible,  and  by 
the  institutions  of  just  and  ccjual  governments,  that  no 
man  shall  be  held  to  be  guilty  and  abridged  of  his 
rights  without  a  legal  and  proper  opportunity  of  self- 
defence,  do  I  complain  of  the  decision  in  each  ana  all 
of  these  charges  as  unequal,  unjust,  and  oppressive: 
and  from  that  decision  do  I  appeal  to  the  collectea 
wisdom  ol  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States. 

8.  I  appeal  and  complain,  because  in  the  minutes 
which  the  Synod  adopted,  they  do  not  even  charge  mc 
with  holding  the  doctrines  alleged  in  the  charges  of 
Dr.  Junlvin.  The  minute  declares  that  "  some  of  the 
errors  alleged  in  the  charges  to  be  lield  by  the  said 
Albert  Barnes  are  fundamental,  and  nil  of  them  con- 
trary to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States,"  and  yet  the  Synod  proceed  to  sus- 
pend ME  Irom  the  gospel  ministry  "  until  I  retract 
those  errors,  and  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  repent- 
ance." Now  ol  this  I  con)pliiin,  and  from  this  I  appeal, 
because  it  was  never  jirovcd  to  the  Synod  that  I  held 
these  errors,  nor  could  it  have  been  on  a  trial  wholly 
ex  parte  J  because  ih  v  do  not  even  pretend  to  say  that 
/hold  those  errors,  but  only  that  they  are  "  alleged 
errors  charged  on  me,"  and  on  the  ground  of  this, 
proceed  to  suspend  me  from  the  ministerial  otlice.  On 
this  principle,  all  that  is  necessary  in  order  to  make 
the  suspension  or  deposition  of  any  minister  proper, is 
merely  that  fundamental  errors  be  "alleged"  against 
him,  and  then  that  some  errors  not  fundaniental  should 
he  supposed  to  he  proved.  On  this  principle,  evident- 
ly, no  man  can  be  sate  in  his  reputation,  property,  or 
life  ;  and  all  justice  must  be  regarded  as  at  an  end. 


THK    APPEAL    OF  1 13 

9.  I  appeal  and  complain,  because  while  the  Synod 
have  decided  that  I  should  be  suspended  until  I  retract 
these  errors,  and  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  repent- 
ance, they  have  not  told  me  before  what  body  it  is  to 
be  done,  or  when  an  opportunity  is  to  be  afforded  to  do 
it.  On  the  supposition  that  I  was  willing  to  do  it,  and 
to  make  all  pro|)er  concessions,  I  am  wholly  uninlbrni- 
ed  when,  or  where  it  can  be  done-  It  was  not  declared 
whether  it  was  to  be  done  before  the  Synod,  or  the 
General  Assembly,  or  the  Presbytery,  or  my  own 
congregation.  The  Synod  will  not  meet  again  in  a 
year;  and  it  is  unreasonable  that  I  should  be  compell- 
ed to  cefctse  from  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of  the 
gospel  ministry,  and  my  people  deprived  of  my  servi- 
ces, and  that  no  opportunity  should  be  given  to  re- 
tract these  alleged  errors  uiUil  that  time.  Moreover 
the  Synsd,  by  a  subsequent  act,  have  dissolved  the 
Presbytery  of  which  I  was  a  member  at  the  time  the 
trial  was  commenced,  and  have  directed  that  ihe  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery  make  ap- 
plication to  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  to  be  re- 
ceived by  them.  Yet  it  is  wholly  uncertain  whether 
this  Presbytery  would  receive  me  on  such  application 
should  it  be  made,  and  the  Synod  have  not  even  direct- 
ed me  to  appear  before  the  Presbytery  or  any  other 
body  to  retract  the  errors  alleged,  and  to  ofl'er  evi- 
dence of  repentance.  Justice  would  have  demanded 
that  even,  under  a  fair  and  constitutional  trial,  some 
such  direction  should  have  been  given.  As  it  is,  there 
is  no  opportunity  given  by  the  Synod  for  any  such  re- 
traction as  It  demands,  and  the  whole  decision,  there- 
fore, is  unjust,  unconstitutional,  and  null  and  void. 

10.  I  appeal  from  the  sentence,  and  complain  of  it 
as  oppressive  and  unjust,  because  the  Synod  gave  me 
no  opportunity,  at  any  time,  of  stating  before  them 
any  reasons  why  it  should  not  be  passed,  or  of  re- 
tracting the  errors  charged  on  me  had  I  been  dispos- 
ed to  do  it.  The  Book  of  Discipline  expressly  de- 
clares (ch.  v.  §  14,)  "  That  a  minister  under  process 
for  heresy  or  schism,  should  be  treated  with  christian 
and  brotlierly  tenderness.  Frequent  conferences 
ought  to  be  held  wiih  him,  and  proper  admonitions 
administered."  With  me,  previous  to  the  final  sen- 
tence, the  Synod  sought  no  conference ;  and  to  me 
they  administered  no  admonition.  The  spirit  and  let- 
ter of  our  Book  of  Discipline  were  thus  violated  ;  and 
the  christian  tenderness  and  kindness  required  in  the 
religion  of  the  Savior  withheld.  On  this  subject  I 
complain  especially,  that  even  if  it  should  be  conceded 
that  the  Synod  were  not  bound  to  do  this  during  the 
trial  of  the  appeal,  yet  every  principle  of  justice  and 
equity  demanded  that  an  opportunity  should  have 
been  given  to  me  to  show  reasons,  if  any  existed,  whj 

10* 


114  MR.    BARNES. 

the  sentence  should  nat  pass.  This  privilege  2s  not 
denied  in  criminal  courts  to  tlie  worst  felons,  before 
a  degrading  and  final  sen'ence  is  pas.sed  ;  bui  to  me, 
a  minister  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  this  privilege  was 
not  granted.  It  cannot  be  pleaded  ihat  this  was  the 
result  of  mere  inadvertence,  for  it  was  ur^ed  by  a 
member  distinctly  before  the  Synod  as  a  matter  of 
right,  which  should  not  be  denied  to  any  man  about 
to  be  coniemned,  and  that  member  was  given  to  un- 
derstand by  the  Moderator  ol  the  Synod,  that  at  the 
proper  time  before  the  final  eenience  should  be  pass- 
ed, that  opportunity  should  be  aflbrded  me.  Yet  it 
was  not  done.  The  appeal  was  sustained,  and  the 
sentence  hurried  through,  without  offerins;  me  an 
opportunity  either  ot  disavowing  those  errors,  or  of 
stating  any  reason  why  a  sentence  so  deeply  afiecting 
my  character,  usefulness,  and  peace,  should  not  be 
pronounced.  Thus,  while  in  all  courts  on  earth  the 
man  who  is  dei'med  by  the  laws  lea.«t  worthy  of  in- 
dulgence and  kindness,  the  man  who  has  imbrued  hie 
hands  in  blood  and  who  is  about  to  pay  the  forfeit 
with  his  life,  is  called  on  at  the  last  stage  of  the  trial, 
and  when  declared  guilty,  by  a  verdict  of  impartial 
men,  and  after  the  country  has  afi'orded  him  every 
possible  indulgence  and  probation  to  show  reasons,  if 
aay  exist,  why  the  last  sentence  of  the  law  should  not 
be  pronounced,  a  mini.-ter  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  denomina- 
tion, a  minister  in  a  land  of  equi'y,  and  of  freedom, 
was  suspended  from  office  not  only  unheard,  6t/f  with- 
out beins  asked  wny  he  should  oiot  be  condemned  ; 
his  ministry  arrested  ;  his  influence  paralyzed  ;  and 
himself  held  up  to  the  public  eye  as  unworthy  to  speak 
of  redeeming  mercy  in  any  pulpit  in  the  land.  Still 
further,  I  complain  that  after  the  sentence  was  pass- 
ed, the  Synod  gave  me  no  opportunity,  had  I  been  dis- 
poned to  do  it,  then,  to  retract  those  errors.  With  a 
cold  and  formal  resolution  that  a  copy  ot  the  sentence 
suspending  me  should  be  presented  to  me  by  the  stat- 
ed clerk,  I  was  sufiered  to  leave  them.  Had  the 
icreat  law  of  christian  kindness  been  observed  by  the 
Synod,  or  had  the  principles  of  equal  justice  been  re- 
garded, an  opportunity  would  have  been  given,  it  is 
humbly  conceived,  for  me,  by  calling  me  affectionate- 
ly before  them,  to  have  staled  reasons  why  the  sen- 
tence should  have  been  at  once  removed,  if  any  such 
reasons  had  existed,  ard  why  I  might  be  permitted  to 
resume  my  ministry.  Because  none  of  these  privi- 
leges were  granted  to  me,  1  complain  to  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  Synod,  as 
unjust  and  oppressive ;  as  evincing  a  determination 
to  suspend  me  from  the  ministry,  and  as  withholding 
from  me  privileges  and  rights  guaranteed  to  me,  in 


THE    APPEAL    OF  115 

every  sacred  manner  in  the  country,  as  a  christian, 
ae  a  minister,  and  as  a  man. 

11.  Because  thus  to  silence  and  condemn  a  minister 
of  the  jifo.spel  who  was  in  fact  unheard  before  the  Sy- 
nod, tends  to  injure  his  character  and  to  destroy  his 
usefulness.  The  whole  authority  and  influence  oi  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  by  the  course  which  lias  been 
pursued,  has  been  employed  on  an  expa/7e  statement 
and  argument,  to  fasten  on  me  in  public  cytiaiation, 
the  belief  of  doctrines  which  I  do  not  hold  ;  to  embar- 
rass ma  in  my  ministry,  and  to  render  me  suspected 
and  odious  in  the  public  estimation  ;  to  alienate  from 
me,  as  far  as  they  could,  the  confidence  and  affection 
of  the  people  of  my  charge;  to  send  forth  n)y  name 
as  branded  with  heresy;  to  break  up  my  plans  of  la- 
bor and  to  annihilate  my  usefulness  ;  and  to  proclaim 
throughout  the  land  and  throughout  the  world,  that 
I  am  unworthy  a  place  in  the  Christian  church,  and 
unfit  to  mtvUe  known  the  unsearchable  riches  ofChrist 
to  my  fellow  men.  All  that  one  of  the  most  numerous 
and  poweri'ul  ecclesiastical  bodies  in  tiie  United 
States  could  do,  has  been  done  to  cover  my  name 
with  infamy,  and  to  transmit  it  thus  to  posterity,  and 
all  this,  when  in  fact  I  have  been  unheard  and  unde- 
fended. But  all  therefore,  that  is  dear  to  me  in  cha- 
racter, and  in  feeling  ;  by  all  my  regard  to  my  happi- 
ness, reputaii(»n,  usefulness;  by  all  the  respect  which 
I  owe  to  myself,  my  family,  my  people,  and  my  friends; 
by  all  the  reasonable  solicitude  which  every  man 
must  cherish  for  the  favorable  opinion  of  the  present, 
and  of  future  times;  and  by  all  itie  love  which  I  feel 
for  the  work  of  the  ministry  into  which  I  have  been 
regularly  inducted  when  holding  the  opinions  which  I 
now  cherish,  and  in  which  /  have  spent  ten  years  of 
my  life— the  vigor  of  my  days— happily,  and  I  hope 
not  idly  and  without  evidence  of  divine  approbation  , 
and  by  all  the  desires  which  every  man  must  feel  that 
his  name  should  not  be  branded  as  infamous  and  his 
character  as  unworthy  of  confidence,  I  feel  myself 
called  on  lo  appeal  to  the  judicatory  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian churcli  in  the  United  States,  and  to  ask  their  in- 
terposition to  reverse  this  unjust  sentence.  Rejoicing  in 
the  right  which  is  thus  given  in  the  christian  denomina- 
tion with  which  I  am  connected,  I  cheerfully  commit 
my  caui^e  to  the  wisdom  of  the  General  Assembly, 
and  to  the  Great  Head  of  the  church,  with  unwaver- 
ing conficfence  that  He  will  overrule  all  to  his  own 
glory,  and  to  the  furtherance  of  his  cause  on  earth. 

And  finally,  I  appeal  and  complain  because,  to  sus- 
pend and  condemn  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  otherwise 
in  good  standing,  while  in  the  midst  of"  plans  of  use- 
fulness, and  while  he  has  evidence  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  attending  and  blessing  his  labors,  to  break 


116  MR.    BARNES. 

up  his  schemes  of  labor,  to  disarrange  and  embarrass 
hi6  Sabbath  schools,  liis  Bible  classes,  and  his  p'ans 
of  benevolent  eflort,  and  to  throw  his  church  into  dis- 
traction, and  to  deprive  them  of  his  services,  because, 
while  he  preaches  the  same  truths  with  his  brethren, 
he  does  not  think  it  best  to   enii)loy  the  same  phrase- 
ology with  them,  and  dilfers  from   them  in  regard  to 
certain  abstruse  points  which   do  not  effect  the  essen- 
tials of  the  doctrine  of  the  church,   and  in  regard  to 
which  the  Presbyterian  denomination  has  always  al- 
lowed its  members  to  ditfer  ;  to  do  this  when  every 
eflort  of  the  church  is  called  lor  to  increase  ihe  num-^ 
ber  oi  ministers  of  the  gospel,  is  a  gross  violation  of 
the  rights  of  conscience  ;  tends  to  repress  investiga- 
tion, and  hberal  inquiry  ;  is  manifestly  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  religious  liberty  with  which  God  has  invest- 
ed us ;  is  at  war  with   the  genius  of  the  times,  and 
with  the  civil  institutions  of  the  land,  and  the  large 
and  liberal  spirit  which  the  Presbyterian  church  has 
always  evinced  ;  is  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of  our  holy 
religion  and  of  the  precepts  of  the  word  ol  God;  is  an 
act  threatening  the   peace  of  no  small  portion  of  the 
ministers  of  the  land,  who  hold  the  same  sentiments  ; 
and  if  carried  out,  would  impose  silence  on  hundreds 
of  the  most  faithful,   pious,  laborious,  and  successful 
ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  of  all  other 
churches ;  would  rend  the   body  ol  Christ  and  close 
hundreds  of  sanctuaries,   and   displace  hundreds  of 
])a6tors  in  the  nation  ;  in  making  religion  in  the  eye  of 
the  world,  but  another  name  for  intolerance,  and  arm- 
ing the  world  against  it ;  and  unless  speedily  and 
sternly  rebuked  by  the  united  wisdom  and  authority 
of  the  whole  church,  will  introduce  a  state  of  tyranny 
and  oppression  among  us,  such  as  existed  before  the 
glorious  reformation.    If  the  principles  involved  in 
this  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  are  to  be^ 
sustained,  no  minister  can  for  a  moment  feel  himself 
safe;  no  man  knows  how  soon  his  character  shall  be 
assailed  and  his  plans  broken  up,  and  the  whole  power 
of  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  employed  to  brand  hia 
name  with  infamy,  and  to  send  it  abroad  as  unworthy 
of  confidence  throughout  the  world.    For  all  these 
reasons  I  appeal  from  this  decision  made  "  contrary 
to  truth  and.righteousness,"  to  the  collected  wisdom 
and  piety  of  the  Prebyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,  and  pray  that  Reverend  body  to  remove  this 
unequal  and  oppressive  sentence ;  to  restore  me  to 
the  lull  exercise  of  all  the  functions  of  a  gospel  minis- 
ter^ and  to  take  such  order  on  the  whole  case  as  in 
their    wisdom  shall  appear  best ;   to  express  their 
eense  of  the  unjust  course  which  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia has  pursued  ;  to  promote  the  unity  of  the  dis- 
tracted churches  ;  and  to  guard  the  rights,  the  repu- 


MEMBERS   OF    SYNOD.  117 

tation,  the  peace  and  the  usefulness  of  all  the  minis- 
ters and  churches  within  our  pounds. 

Albert  Barnes. 
Philadelphia,  Nov.  10,  1835. 


LIST   OF   THE   MEMBERS    OF   SYNOD. 

The  first  portion  of  the  Report,  as  it  appeared  in  the  Obser- 
ver, baring  been  omitted  by  the  publishers  of  this  work,  (their 
sole  object  being  to  present  what  related  d'rcctly  to  the  trial 
of  Mr.  Barnes,)  it  has  happened,  through  inadvertence,  that 
the  roll  of  the  Synod  has  been  omitted  with  the  rest.  It  la 
therefore  supplied  in  this  place. 

Presbytery  of  Philadelphia. 

Ministers.— Aslibel  Green,  D.  D.,  George  C.  Potts,  Wm. 
Latta,  G.  VV.  Janvier,  Wm.  M.  Engles,  VV.  L.  M  Calla, 
Samuel  Lawrence,  Chas.  Williamson,  S.  G.  Winchester,  A. 
P.  Harker,  John  W.  Grier,  Nathan  Harned,  George  M'Cuen, 
Moses  Williamson,  John  Kennedy,  A.  B.  Bradford,  S.  -D. 
Blyihe,  A\ex.  Macklin,  Jared  L.  Elliott,  Alex.  Heberton, 
Win.  Ramsey.  Elders— James  Algeo,  Moses  Richmond, 
John  Cade,  Sam.  Black,  John  Moore,  Levi  Stratton,  Charles 
Woodward,  Alex.  Symington. 

Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia. 
Ministers.— Wm.  Neill,  D,  D.,   John  M'Dowell,   D.  D., 
Alex.  Boyd,  C.  C.  Cuyler,  D.  D.,  R.  B.  Belviile,  Robert  Steel, 
J.  L.  Dinwiddle,  Robert  Adair,  S.  M.  Andrews,  Wm.  Gibson, 

Morss.    Elders.— Wm.  Howard,   M.   D.  Bevan,  J. 

Vanarsdale,  Andrew  Brown,  James  Horner,  Sam.  E.  Leech, 
Wm.  A.  Stokes,  David  Getty,  John  Beatty,  Geo.  Durfor, 
Alfred  Jenks,  Joseph  Taney. 

Presbytery  of  New  Castle. 
Ministers. — Sam'l.  Martin,  D.  D.,  James  Latta,  Jos, 
Barr,  S.  Boyer,  Wm.  Finney,  S;tmuel  Park,  J.  N.  C.  Grier, 
O.  Douglass,  T.  Love,  A.  G.  Morrison,  W.  F.  Houston,  J. 
M.  Dickey,  A.  K.  Russel,  John  H.  Synimes,  R.  H.  Davis,  J. 
D.  Perkins,  J.  T.  Davie,  D.  C.  Ruiter, Simpson.  El- 
ders.— Robert  Gemmil,  James  Keiion,  Thomas  Stewait, 
James  Steele,  Zephaniah  Bayless,  William  Whiteford,  John 
Buchnan,  James  Patterson,  Sam'l  Murphy,  Jos.  H.  Gardner, 
James  Wilson,  John  Whann,  Wm.  P.  Banleit,  Wm.  Kirk- 
patrick,  Janus  Perry,  James  Love,  P.  F.  Lemitt,  David 
Jakson,  Wm.  L.  Kennedy,  Rjberi  Evans,  James  Keer. 

Presbytery  of  Baltimore. 
Ministers. — John  Breckenridge,  D.  D.,   Robert  J.  Breck- 
enridge,   G.  W.  Musgrave,  J.  G.  Hamner,   Geo.    Morrison, 
P.  F.  Phelps.    Elders. — George  Moins,  Peter  Fenby,  Wm. 
Drurie,  John  Sterret,  Chester  Coleman. 


118  MEMBERS    OF    SYNOD 

Presbytery  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 
Ministers.— E.  Harrison,   R.  Post,  M.  Noble,  John   C. 
Smith,  E.  Bosworth,  James  J.  Graft".    Eldehs.— Olho  Ma- 
gruder,  Robert  Hunter,  John  Kennedy,  Jacob  Gideon,  jr.  Win. 
B.  Gales,  Thos.  Vowel. 

Presbytery  of  Carlisle. 
Ministers.— Robert  Cathcart,  D.  D.,  D.  Denney,  Robert 
Kennedy,  A.  M'Ginley,  John  Moody,  H.  R.  Wilson,  J.  B. 
Sharon,  Jas.  Buchanan,  J.  M'Knight,  W.  R.  Dewitt,  James 
Williamson,  Daniel  M'Kiiiley,  R.  M'Cachren,  A.  B.  Qua, 
Thos.  Creii^'h,  W.  B.  Patterson,  J.  C.  Watson,  R.  Wynkoop, 
N.  G.  White,  J.  Dickey,  R.  S.  Grier.  Elders.— Amos  M'Gin- 
ley, Wm.  M'llvain,  James  Dallas,  Wm.  Rodgers,  Bcnj.  Jordan, 
David  FuUerton,  Wm.  Gilland,  Alex.  Graydon,  And.  Blair, 
And.  Woods,  Jacob  Rimer,  Alex.  M'Coy,  Wm.  Irvin,  Jacoii 
Cassatt,  Jos.  Gabl<y,  James  Agnew,  Andrew  Lynn,  Robert 
M'llvaine,  Wni.  Woods,  And.  Carothers,  Henry  Mainfold, 
Wm.  Milligan,  W.  S.  Davis,  James  Graham. 

Presbytery  of  Huntingdon. 
MiNifTERs.— J.  Hutchinson,  Jas.  Lynn,  Samuel  Hill,  David 
M'Kinney,  B.  E.  Collins,  Samuel  VVilson,  Joshua  Moore,  M. 
K.  Williamson,  J.  M.  Olmstead,  Wm.  Annan.  Eldebs.— John 
M'Alister,  Hamilton  Humes,  John  Bailey,  John  Kerr,  Joseph 
Gilleland,  John  Porter,  Nathan  Wilson,  Wm.  Barr,  Wm.  Ir- 
vin, James  Anderson,  James  Wilson. 

Presbytery  of  Northumberland. 

Ministers.— J.  B.  Patterson,  J.  H.  Grier,  Wm.  Smyth,  R- 
Dunlap,  D.  M.  Barber,  J.  P.  Hudson,  J.  M.  Marr,  Samuel 
Shedden,  Mr.  Todd.  Elders.— Wm.  Shedden,  Thos.  Moore- 
head,  And.  Ferguson,  jr.  John  B.  Boyd,  Wm.  Cash,  James 
Grier,  Robt.  H.  Laird,  James  Rankin,  A.  D.  Hessler,  J.  San- 
derson. 

Asscv:bly's  2d  Presbytery. 

Ministers.— E.  S.  Ely.  D.  D.,  A.  Barnes,  J.  Patterson,  J. 
L.  Grant,  G.  Chandler,  A.  Judson,  S.  Haight,  J.  W.  Scott, 
J.R.  Barbour,  J.  Smith,  T.  J.  A.  Mines,  Wm.  Bacon,  Geo. 
Duffieki,  Thomas  Eustace.  Elders.- A.  White,  T.  Flem- 
ming,  Samuel  VVithington,  Isaac  Will,  W.  J.  Sedinger,  F. 
Schofield,  E.  Jones,  S.  Glocester,  A.  Frie,  R.  W.  Davenport, 
John  Van  Dyke,  Lewis  Reese. 

Presbytery  of    Wilmington. 
MiNiSTERs.-E.  W.  Gilbert,  J.  C.  How,  H.  Hammill,  W. 
G.  Jones,  R.  W.  Landis,  J.  Knox,  S.  M.  Gailey,  A.  Granger, 
J.  D.  Pickands,   N.  Patters-on,  J.  M'Kim.    Eldehs.— Robert 
Porter,  John  Clark,  Jacob  Faris. 

Presbytery  of  Lewes. 
Ministers. — Robert  M.  Laird,  A.  Campbell,  C.  Brown,  G. 
W.  Kennedy,  Cornelius  MuStard.    Elders.— Robert  Boyd. 
Ministers,  133 
Elders,         113 

ToTAi.  246. 


119 


CORRECTIONS. 

Since  the  report  appeared,  the  editors  of  the  Observer  liavc 
received  one  or  two  lelters  from  individual  members  of  the 
Synod  requesting  the  correction  of  some  inaccuracies  which 
had  occurred  in  the  representation  of  their  speeches,  and,  as 
the  readiest  mode  of  doing  this,  we  here  insert  the  material 
portions  of  the  letters  tiieinselves.  It  will  be  observed  that 
they  are  from  gentlemen  on  different  sides  on  the  main  ques- 
tion before  the  court,  and  that  while  they  advert  to  occasion- 
al errors  of  the  reporter,  tkcy  concur  in  bearing  unequivocal 
testimony  la  his  general  accuracy  and  impartiality. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Wikchester,  of  Philadelphia,  says  in  his 
letter : 

"I  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to  a  mistake  made  in 
the  report  of  some  of  my  remarks.  It  occurs  in  the  second 
speech  I  made  on  the  case,  where  I  am  made  to  say,  (see  p. 
14,  at  bottom,)  "The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  refused  to  make 
a  division  of  its  presbyteries  into  two  synods  ;  a  complaint 
was  preferred  to  the  Assembly  against  that  decision.  On  the 
vote  to  sustain  this  complaint  the  synod  was  excluded,  &c." 
Now  this  is  altogether  a  mistake.  1.  The  refusal  of  the  sy- 
nod, alluded  to,  was  not  to  make  two  synods:,  but  two  presby- 
teries, out  of  the  one  Philadelphia  presbytery.  2.  The  com- 
plaint was  not  against  that  refusal ;  but,  as  Mr.  Breckinridge 
slated,  the  synod,  after  refusing  to  divide  the  presbyteries, 
re/erred  the  matter  to  thg  Assembly.  Against  this  decision 
to  rc/er  the  case  the  complaint  was  taken  ;  and  instead  of 
taking  up  the  reference,  the  Assembly  took  up  the  complaint, 
turned  out  the  synod,  and  divided  the  presbyteries,  &,c.  I 
said  this,  (and  I  wish  you  to  be  so  good  as  to  correct  it :) 
'  That  if  we  should  refer  this  case  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  a  com- 
plaint should  be  entered  against  the  reference,  and  the  As- 
sembly should  take  up  the  case  under  the  complaint  instead 
of  the  reference,and  thus  throw  the  synod  out  of  the  house, — 
if  this  was  to  be  the  course  of  things  in  the  next  Assembly,  I 
would  be  opposed  to  a  reference,  for  I  would  not  jeopardize 
the  rights  of  ihe  synod.  If  we  are  to  be  thrown  out,  let  us 
be  thrown  out  lawfully,  cither  by  appeal  or  complaint,  but 
not  by  a  reference,  merely  because  there  is  a  complaint 
against  the  reference.'  "  », 

p.  277,  1. 19.  Mr.  Winchester  says:  "  I  said  jusi  the  reverse 
of  this.  I  stated  that  Mr.  Barnes  did  not  deny  the  doctrine 
of  decrees  in  his  book." 

p.  277,  paragraph  at  the  bottom.  In  relation  to  this  para- 
graph J\lr.  W.  says  :  "  This  is  incorrect.  The  question  I  ask- 
ed Dr.  Hodge  was— if  a  man  should  deny  any  one  doctrine 
fundamental  to  our  system,  would  he  vote  to  admit  him  I 
which  led  me  to  observe,  that  the  word  fundamental  w-as  rela- 
tive, and  therefore  often  vaguely  used.  A  doctrine  may  be 
fundamental  to  our  system,  yet  not  so  to  Chrisiianity  in  the 
general.    I  further  stated,  that  Dr.  Hodge  would  admit  e.\- 


120 

plnnations,  provided  they  did  not  amount  to  a  denial  of  the 
doctrine  attempted  to  be  explained. 

p.  278.  lines  13  ani  19.  For  pestiferous  heresies,  read,  in 
each  case,  pestiferous  errors. 

He  also  requests  that  in  that  paragraph  of  the  report,  (page 
17)  where  it  is  said  that  "  a  member  stated  that  a  count  had 
been  kept,  and  that  Mr.  W.  had  used  the  personal  pronoun 
55  times  in  8  minutes,  the  name  of  "  the  Rev.  John  M.  Die. 
key"  should  be  substituted  for  "a  member,"  and  asks  in  a 
tone  of  complaint,  "Did  not  your  reporter  know  who  that 
member  was  1"  To  this  question  the  truth  is  the  best,  and 
will  be  a  satisfactory,  reply :  our  reporter  did  not  know  tha 
name  of  the  member,  or  he  would  have  given  it.  MrWin  - 
Chester,  however,  adds,  "  But  I  do  say  that,  so  far,  I  admire 
the  impartiality  of  Mr.  Stansbury." 

The  other  letter  is  from  the  Rev.  E.  W,  Gilbert,  of  Wil- 
mington. He  complains,  and  very  naturally,  of  a  paragraph 
in  the  report  of  his  speech,  (see  p.  221,  line  4th,)  which,  by  a 
typographical  error,  is  converted  into  perfect  nonsense.  The 
word  "jurisdiction"  was  printed  for  the  word  "  Jesuistry.'' 
No  wonder  it  turned  the  speaker's  meaning  into  darkness. 
In  the  reference  to  Dr.  Miller  it  is  said,  "  and  one  whom  our 
brethren  have  never  accused  of  jurisdiction."  Please  read, 
"  Bnt  by  one  whom  our  brethren  have  never  accused  of  Jesu- 
istry." 

Again  :  just  after  the  quotations  from  Mr.  Steele's  e-xami- 
nation,  (see  p.  224,  line  13  from  bottom,)  it  is  said,  "If  there 
was  a  letter  coritaining  rebutting  testimony,  who  brought  it 
before  presbytery?  «&c.  Yet  such  a  letter  there  was."  The 
passage,  at  present,  is  wholly  uninieHkible.  Please  substi- 
tute the  following: 

"  If  the  rebutting  testimony  adduced  by  Mr.  Barnes  before 
the  presbytery  has  been  brought  before  this  synod,  who 
brought  it?  Somebody  must.  Was  it  Dr.  Junkin?  It  is 
not  pretended.  Mr.  Barnes  1  No.  The  presbytery?  No. 
They  have  not  been  heard.  Not  a  word  or  a  letter  of  it  has 
been  read.  Yet  such  testimony  (here  was  before  the  presby- 
tery, and  it  should  have  been  exhibited  here.  Laying  a  book 
on  the  table  is  not  bringing  it  before  the  court." 

Mr.  Gilbert  then  adds,  per  contra, 

"  Mr.  Stansbury's  accuracy,  and  minute  accuracy,  general- 
ly, is  remarkable,  and  astonishing ;  and  I  blame  myiflf  more 
than  him  for  the  confusion  apparent  in  some  parts  of  tht 
epe«ch." 


Date  Due 

wr    lf)*'H 

f 

^JfBXSSS^ 

f^K 

i  1 1  kl     1 

P     4AAA 

JUN  1 

)  1990 

.IIIN  i  [ 

;  mi 

JUN  - 

^1993 

JUNjJ 

.  5 1994 

JUN1" 

)1995 

JUN 

1  •;  19% 

<$) 

V  '     -X 


n^ 


J    1012  01013  4171 


w* 


m 


I?  ^^- 


%< 


m 


mmf 


'  i  • 


